Chapter 8: Imputation of the Sins of the Church unto Christ; His Suretyship and the New Covenant

THose who believe the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto believers, for the justification of life, do also unanimously profess, that the sins of all believers were imputed unto Christ. And this they do on many testimonies of the scripture directly witnessing thereunto, some whereof shall be pleaded and vindicated afterwards. At present we are only on the consideration of the general notion of these things, and the declaration of the nature of what shall be proved afterwards. And in the first place we shall inquire into the foundation of this dispensation of God, and the equity of it, or the grounds whereinto it is resolved, without an understanding whereof, the thing it self cannot be well apprehended.

The principal Foundation hereof is, that Christ and the church, in this design, were one mystical person, which state they do actually coalesce in, through the uniting Efficacy of the Holy Spirit. He is the head, and believers are the members of that one person, as the apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13. Hence as what he did is imputed unto them, as if done by them, so what they deserved on the Account of sin was charged upon him. So is it expressed by a Learned Prelate; Nostram causam sustinebat, qui nostram sibi Carnem aduniverat, & ita nobis arctissimo vinculo conjunctus, & , quae erant nostra fecit sua. And again; Quid mirum si in nostra persona constitutus, nostram carnem indutus, &c. Môntacut. Origin. Ecclesiast. The Antients speak to the same purpose. Leo. Serm. 17. Ideo se humanae infirmitati virtus divina conseruit, ut dum Deus sua facit esse quae nostra sunt, nostra faceret esse quae sua sunt. And also Sermo. 16. Caput nostrum Dominus Jesus Christus omnia in se corporis sui membra transformans, quod olim in Psalmo eructaverat, id in supplicio crucis sub Redemptorum suorum voce clamavit. And so speaks Augustine to the same purpose; Epist. 120. ad Honoratum; Audimus vocem corporis, ex ore capitis; Ecclesia in illo patiebatur, quando pro Ecclesia patiebatur, &c. We hear the voice of the body from the mouth of the head. The church suffered in him, when he suffered for the church; as he suffers in the church, when the church suffers for him. For as we have heard the voice of the church in Christ-suffering, my God, my Lord, why hast you forsaken me; look upon me; so we have heard the voice of Christ in the church-suffering, Saul, Saul, why persecut you me. But we may yet look a little backward and farther into the sense of the antient church herein. Christus, says Irenaeus, omnes Gentes exinde ab Adam disper sas, & Generationem hominum in semet ipso recapitulatus est; unde a Paulo Typus futuri dictus est ipse Adam; lib. 3. cap. 33. And again; Recapitulans universum hominum genus in se ab initio usque ad finem, recapitulatus est & mortem ejus. In this of Recapitulation there is no doubt but he had respect unto the , mentioned, Ephesians 1:10. And it may be this was that which Origen intended aenigmatically, by saying, the soul of the first Adam was the soul of Christ, as it is charged on him. And Cyprian, Epist. 63. on bearing about the administration of the sacrament of the Eucharist; nos omnes portabat Christus; qui & peccata nostra portabat. He bare us, or suffered in our person, when he bare our sins. Whence Athanasius affirms of the voice he used on the Cross; , We suffered in him. Eusebius speaks many things to this purpose. Demonstrat. Evangel. lib. 10. cap. 1. Expounding those words of the Psalmist, Heal my soul, for, or as he would read them, if, I have sinned against you; and applying them unto our savior in his sufferings; He says thus, ; because he took of our sins to himself; communicated our sins to himself; making them his own; For so he adds, , making our sins his own. And because in his following words he fully expresss what I design to prove, I shall transcribe them at large, .

I have transcribed this passage at large, because, as I said, what I intend to prove in the present discourse is declared fully therein. Thus therefore he speaks. How then did he make our sins to be his own, and how did he bear our Iniquities? Is it not from thence, that we are said to be his body, as the apostle speaks, You are the body of Christ, and members, for your part, or of one another; and as when one member suffers, all the members do suffer; so the many members, sinning and suffering, He according unto the laws of sympathy in the same body, (seeing that being the word of God, he would take the form of a Servant, and be joyned unto the common habitation of us all (in the same nature) took the sorrows or labours of the suffering members on him, and made all their Infirmities his own, and according to the laws of humanity (in the same body) bare our sorrow and labor for us. And the Lamb of God did not only these things for us, but he underwent torments, and was punished for us; that which he was no ways exposed unto for himself, but we were so by the multitude of our sins; and thereby he became the cause of the pardon of our sins; namely, because he underwent death, Stripes, Reproaches, translating the thing which we had deserved unto himself; and was made a curse for us, taking unto himself the curse that was due to us; For what was he, but (a substitute for us) a price of redemption for our souls? In our person therefore the Oracle speaks, — whilst freely uniting himself unto us, and us unto himself, and making our (sins or passions his own) I have said Lord be merciful unto me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against you.

That our sins were transferred unto Christ and made his, that thereon he underwent the punishment that was due unto us for them: and that the ground hereof, whereinto its equity is resolved, is the union between him and us, is fully declared in this discourse. So says the Learned and Pathetical author of the Homilies on Matthew 5. in the works of Chrysostom, Hom. 54. which is the last of them. In carne sua omnem carnem suscepit, crucifixus, omnem carnem crucifixit in se. He speaks of the church. So they speak often others of them; that he bare us, that he took us with him on the Cross, that we were all crucified in him; as Prospher; He is not saved by the Cross of Christ, who is not crucified in Christ. Resp. ad cap. Galatians cap. 9.

This then I say is the Foundation of the imputation of the sins of the church unto Christ, namely, that he and it are one person, the grounds whereof we must inquire into.

But hereon sundry discourses do ensue, and various inquiries are made. What a person is, in what sense, and how many senses that word may be used; what is the true notion of it, what is a natural person, what a legal, civil, or political person; in the Explication whereof some have fallen into mistakes. And if we should enter into this Field, we need not fear matter enough of debate and altercation. But I must needs say, that these things belong not unto our present occasion; nor is the union of Christ and the church illustrated, but obscured by them. For Christ and believers are neither one natural person, nor a legal or political person, nor any such person as the laws, Customs, or Usages of men do know or allow of. They are one mystical person, whereof although there may be some imperfect Resemblances found in natural or political Unions, yet the union from whence that Denomination is taken between him and us, is of that nature, and ariss from such reasons and causes, as no Personal union among men, (or the union of many persons) has any concernment in. And therefore as to the Representation of it unto our weak understandings unable to comprehend the depth of Heavenly mysteries, it is compared unto Unions of divers kinds and natures. So is it represented by that of Man and Wife; not unto those mutual affections which give them only a moral union, but from the extraction of the first Woman, from the flesh and bone of the first man, and the Institution of God for the Individual Society of life thereon. This the apostle at large declares, Ephesians 5:25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. Whence he concludes, that from the union thus represented, we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bone, verse 30. or have such a relation unto him, as Eve had to Adam, when she was made of his flesh and bone; and so was one flesh with him. So also it is compared unto the union of the head and Members of the same natural body, 1 Corinthians 12:12. and unto a political union also between a Ruling or political head, and its political Members; but never exclusively unto the union of a natural head, and its Members comprized in the same Expression, Ephesians 4:15. Colossians 2:19. And so also unto sundry things in nature, as a Vine and its Branches, John 15:1, 2, 3. And it is declared by the relation that was between Adam and his posterity, by Gods Institution and the law of creation; Romans 5:12. &c. And the Holy Ghost by representing the union that is between Christ and believers, by such a variety of Resemblances, in things agreeing only in the common or general notion of union on various grounds, does sufficiently manifest that it is not of, nor can be reduced unto any one kind of them. And this will yet be made more evident by the consideration of the causes of it, and the grounds whereinto it is resolved. But whereas it would require much time and diligence to handle them at large, which the mention of them here being occasional, will not admit, I shall only briefly refer unto the heads of them.

1. The first spring or cause of this union, and of all the other causes of it, lieth in that eternal compact that was between the father and the Son, concerning the Recovery and salvation of fallen mankind. Herein among other things as the effects thereof, the Assumption of our nature, (the foundation of this union) was designed. The nature and terms of this Compact, counsel, and Agreement, I have declared elsewhere, and therefore must not here again insist upon it. But the relation between Christ and the church, proceeding from hence, and so being an effect of infinite wisdom, in the counsel of the father and Son, to be made effectual by the Holy Spirit, must be distinguished from all other Unions or relations whatever.

2. The Lord Christ as unto the nature which he was to assume, was hereon predestinated unto grace and glory. He was fore-ordained, predestinated, before the foundation of the world; 1 Peter 1:20. That is, he was so as unto his Office, so unto all the grace and glory required thereunto, and consequent thereon. All the grace and glory of the Humane nature of Christ, was an effect of free Divine preordination. God chose it from all eternity, unto a participation of all which it received in time. Neither can any other cause of the glorious exaltation of that portion of our nature, be assigned.

3. This grace and glory whereunto he was preordained, was twofold. (1) That which was peculiar unto himself; (2) That which was to be Communicated, by and through him unto the church. Of the first sort was the the grace of Personal union, that single effect of Divine wisdom, (whereof there is no shadow nor Resemblance in any other works of God, either of creation, providence, or grace) which his nature was filled withal. Full of grace and truth. And all his personal glory, power, authority, and majesty as Mediator in his exaltation at the right hand of God, which is expressive of them all, does belong hereunto. These things were peculiar unto him, and all of them effects of his eternal Predestination. But (2) He was not thus predestinated absolutely, but also with respect unto that grace and glory which in him and by him, was to be communicated unto the church. And he was so:

1. As the Pattern and Exemplary cause of our Predestination; For we are predestinated to be conformed unto the Image of the Son of God, that he might be the first born among many Brethren. Romans 8:29. Hence he shall even change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, Philippians 3:21. That when he appears, we may be every way like him. 1 John 3:2.

2. As the means and cause of Communicating all grace and glory unto us. For we are chosen in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be Holy, and predestinated unto the adoption of Children by him. Ephesians 1:3, 4, 5. He was designed as the only procuring cause, of all spiritual Blessings in Heavenly things unto those who are chosen in him. Wherefore

3. He was thus fore-ordained as the head of the church, it being the design of God to gather all things into an head in him, Ephesians 1:10.

4. All the elect of God were in his eternal purpose and design, and in the everlasting covenant between the father and the Son, committed unto him to be delivered from sin, the law, and death, and to be brought into the enjoyment of God. Yours they were, and you gav them unto me. John 17:6. Hence was that love of his unto them, wherewith he loved them and gave himself for them, antecedently unto any good or love in them, Ephesians 5:25, 26. Galatians 2:20. Revelation 1:5, 6.

5. In the prosecution of this design of God, and in the accomplishment of the everlasting covenant, in the fulness of Time he took upon him our nature, or took it into personal subsistence with himself. The especial relation that ensued hereon between him and the elect Children, the apostle declares at large, Hebrews 2:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. And I refer the reader unto our exposition of that place.

6. On these Foundations he undertook to be the Surety of the new covenant, Hebrews 7:22. Jesus was made a Surety of a better testament. This alone of all the fundamental considerations of the imputation of our sins unto Christ, I shall insist upon, on purpose to obviate or remove, some mistakes about the nature of his Suretiship, and the respect of it unto the covenant, whereof he was the Surety. And I shall borrow what I shall offer hereon, from our exposition of this passage of the apostle on the seventh chapter of this epistle not yet published, with very little variation from what I have discoursed on that occasion, without the least respect unto, or prospect of any treating on our present subject.

The word , is no where found in the scripture, but in this place only. But the advantage which some would make from thence, namely, that it being but one place wherein the Lord Christ is called a Surety, it is not of much force, or much to be insisted on, is both unreasonable and absurd. For (1) this one place is of Divine Revelation, and therefore is of the same authority with twenty testimonies unto the same purpose. One Divine testimony makes our faith no less necessary, nor does one less secure it from being deceived, then an hundred.

2. The signification of the word is known, from the use of it, and what it signifies among men, that no question can be made of its sense and importance, though it be but once used; And this on any occasion removes the Difficulty and Danger, . (3) The thing it self intended is so fully declared by the apostle in this place, and so plentifully taught in other places of the scripture, as that the single use of this word, may add light, but can be no prejudice unto it.

Something may be spoken unto the signification of the word which will give light into the thing intended by it. is Vola manus, the palm of the hand; Thence is , or , to deliver into the hand. is of the same signification. Hence being a Surety is interpreted by striking the hand, Proverbs 6:1. My Son if you be Surety for your friend, if you hast stricken your hand, with a Stranger. So it answers the Hebrew which the Lxx render Proverbs 6:1. Chap. 17:18. Chap. 20:19. and by Nehem. 5:3. Originally signifies to mingle, or a mixture of any things or persons. And thence from the conjunction and mixture that is between a Surety and him for whom he is a Surety, whereby they coalesce into one person, as unto the ends of that Suretiship; it is used for a Surety, or to give Surety. And he that was, or did a Surety, or become a Surety, was to answer for him, for whom he was so, whatsoever befell him. So is it described, Genesis 43:9. in the words of Judah unto his father Jacob, concerning Benjamin. I will be Surety for him; of my hand shalt you require him. In undertaking to be Surety for him, as unto his safety and preservation, he engags himself to answer for all that should befall him, for so he adds; if I bring him not unto the, and set him before the, let me be guilty for ever. And on this ground he entreats Joseph, that he might be a Servant and a Bondman in his stead, that he might go free and return unto his father, Genesis 44:32, 33. This is required unto such a Surety, that he undergo and answer all that he for whom he is a Surety is liable unto, whether in things criminal, or civil, so far as the Suretiship does extend. A Surety is an undertaker for another, or others who thereon is justly and legally to answer what is due to them, or from them. Nor is the word otherwise used. See Job. 17:3. Proverbs 6:1. Chap. 11:15. Chap. 17:11. Chap. 20:16. Chap. 27:13. So Paul became a Surety unto Philemon for Onesimus, verse 17. is Sponsio, Expromissio, Fidejussio; an undertaking or giving Security for any thing or person unto another, whereon an Agreement did ensue. This in some cases was by pledges, or an Earn, Isaiah 36:8. Give Surety, pledges, Hostages, for the true performance of conditions. Hence is a pledge or Earn, Ephesians 1:14. Wherefore is Sponsor, Fidejussor, Praes, One that voluntarily takes on himself the cause or condition of another, to answer, undergo, or pay what he is liable unto, or to see it done, whereon he becomes justly and legally obnoxious unto performance; In this sense is the word here used by the apostle, for it has no other.

In our present inquiry into the nature of this Suretiship of Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, namely, whether the Lord Christ was made a Surety only on the part of God unto us, to assure us, that the promise of the covenant on his part should be accomplished; or also and principally an undertaker on our part, for the performance of what is required, if not of us, yet with respect unto us, that the promise may be accomplished. The first of these is vehemently asserted by the socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond in their Annotations on this place.

The words of Schlictingius are, Sponsor foederis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis spoponderit, id est fidem fecerit, Deum foederis promissiones servaturum. Non vero quasi pro nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, foedus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit & in se recepit; ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter, sed foederis sponsor nominatur; spopondit autem Christus pro foederis divini veritate, non tantum quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetuo testatus est; sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem, maximis rerum ipsarum comprobavit Documentis, cum perfecta vitae innocentia & Sanctitate, cum divinis plane quae patravit operibus; cum mortis adeo truculentae, quam pro Doctrinae suae veritate subijt, perpessione. After which he subjoyns a long discourse about the evidences which we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account of their whole Opinion concerning the mediation of Christ. The words of Grotius are; spopondit Christus, i.e. Nos certos Promissi fecit, non solis verbis, sed perpetua vitae Sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata & miraculis plurimis; which are an Abridgment of the discourse of Schlictingius. To the same purpose Dr. Hammond expounds it, that he was a Sponsor or Surety for God unto the confirmation of the promises of the covenant.

On the other hand the generality of Expositors, antient and modern, of the Romansan and protestant churches on the place affirm, that the Lord Christ as the Surety of the covenant, was properly a Surety or undertaker unto God for us, and not a Surety and undertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of Great Importance, wherein the faith and consolation of the church is highly concerned, I shall insist a little upon it.

And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to prove that Christ was only a Surety for God unto us. Now this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the Office or work of Surety, nor from the nature of the covenant, whereof he was a Surety, nor of the Office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on is; That we do not give Christ as a Surety of the covenant unto God, but he gives him unto us, and therefore he is a Surety for God and the accomplishment of his promises, and not for us to pay our debts, or to answer what is required of us.

But there is no force in this argument. For it belongs not unto the nature of a Surety, by whom he is or may be designed unto his Office and work therein. His own voluntary susception of the Office and work, is all that is required, however he may be designed or induced to undertake it. He who of his own accord does voluntarily undertake for another, on what grounds, reasons, or considerations soever he does so, is his Surety. And this the Lord Christ did in the behalf of the church. For when it was said, sacrifice and burnt-Offering and whole burnt-Offerings for sin, God would not have, or accept as sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so as that the covenant might be established and made effectual unto us, then said he, Loe I come to do your will O God, Hebrews 10:5.6. He willingly and voluntarily out of his own abundant goodness and love, took upon him to make atonement for us, wherein he was our Surety. And accordingly this undertaking is ascribed unto that love which he exercised herein, Galatians 2:20. 1 John 3:16. Revelation 1:5. And there was this in it moreover, that he took upon him our nature or the Seed of Abraham, wherein he was our Surety. So that although we neither did nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us, that wherein and whereby he was so, which is as much as if we had designed him unto his work, as to the true reason of his being our Surety. Wherefore notwithstanding those antecedent Transactions that were between the father and him in this matter, it was the voluntary engagement of himself to be our Surety, and his taking our nature upon him for that end, which was the formal reason of his being enstated in that Office.

It is indeed weak and contrary unto all common experience, that none can be a Surety for others, unless those others design him and appoint him so to be. The principal instances of Suretiship in the world, have been by the voluntary undertaking of such as were no way procured so to do by them for whom they undertook; And in such undertakings he unto whom it is made, is no less considered, than they for whom it is made. As when Judah on his own accord became a Surety for Benjamin, he had as much respect unto the satisfaction of his father, as the safety of his Brother. And so the Lord Christ, in his undertaking to be a Surety for us, had respect unto the glory of God before our safety.

1. We may consider the arguments whence it is evident that he neither was, nor could be a Surety unto us for God, but was so for us unto God. For

1. or a Surety, is one that undertaks for another wherein he is defective really or in Reputation. Whatever that undertaking be, whether in words of promise, or in depositing of real security in the hands of an Arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life and body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any one becomes a surety. Such an one is Sponsor, or Fidejussor, in all Good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a Reputation every way unquestionable, there is no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words of a surety in the behalf of another whose Ability or Reputation is dubious, are, ad me recipio, fac[•]et, aut faciam. And when is taken adjectively, as sometimes, it signifies satisdationibus obnoxius; liable to payments for others, that are non-solvent.

2. God can therefore have no surety properly, because there can be no Imagination of any defect on his part. There may be indeed a question whether any word or promise, be a word or promise of God. To assure us hereof, it is not the work of a surety, but only any one, or any means that may give evidence that so it is, that is, of a Witness. But upon a supposition that what is proposed in his word or promise, there can be no Imagination or fear of any defect on his part, so as that there should be any need of a surety for the performance of it. He does therefore make use of Witnesses to confirm his word; that is, to testifie that such promises he has made, and so he will do. So the Lord Christ was his Witness, Isaiah 43:10. Ye are my Witnesses says the Lord, and my Servant whom I have chosen. But they were not all his sureties. So he affirms, that he came into the world to bear witness unto the truth, John 18:37. that is, the truth of the promises of God; for he was the minister of the Circumcision for the truth of the promises of God unto the fathers, Romans 15:8. But a surety for God, properly so called, he was not, nor could be. The distance and difference is wide enough between a witness and a surety. For a surety must be of more Ability, or more Credit and Reputation than he or those for whom he is a surety, or there is no need of his suretiship; or at least he must add unto their credit, and make it better than without him. This none can be for God, no not the Lord Christ himself, who in his whole work was the Servant of the father. And the apostle does not use this word in general improper sense for any one that by any means gives assurance of any other thing, for so he had ascribed nothing peculiar unto Christ. For in such a sense all the prophets and apostles were sureties for God, and many of them confirmed the truth of his word and promises, with the laying down of their lives. But such a surety he intends as undertaks to do that for others which they cannot do for themselves; or at least are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them.

3. The apostle had before at large declared, who, and what was Gods surety in this mattter of the covenant, and how impossible it was that he should have any other. And this was himself alone, interposing himself by his Oath. For in this cause, because he had none greater to swear by, he swore by himself, chap. 6:13, 14. Wherefore if God would give any other surety besides himself, it must be one greater than He. This being every way impossible, he swears by himself only. Many ways he may and does use for the declaring and testifying of his truth unto us, that we may know and believe it to be his word; and so the Lord Christ in his ministry was the principal witness of the truth of God. But other surety than himself he can have none. And therefore,

4. When he would have us in this matter not only come unto the full assurance of faith concerning his promises, but also to have strong consolation therein, he resolves it wholly into the Immutability of his counsel, as declared by his promise and Oath. chap. 6:18, 19. So that neither is God capable of having any surety properly so called, neither do we stand in need of any on his part for the confirmation of our faith in the highest degree.

5. We on all accounts stand in need of a surety for us, or on our behalf. Neither without the Interposition of such a surety, could any covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure. In the first covenant made with Adam there was no surety, but God and men were the immediate Covenanters. And although we were then in a state and condition able to perform and answer all the Terms of the covenant, yet was it broken and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the promise of God, it was necessary that on the making of a new covenant he should have a surety to undertake for him, that the covenant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false and blasphemous to imagine. It was man alone who failed and broke that covenant. Wherefore it was necessary that upon the making of the New covenant, and that with a design and purpose that it should never be disannulled as the former was, that we should have a surety and undertaker for us. For if that first covenant was not firm and stable because there was no surety to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that Ability which we had to answer the terms of it; how much less can any other be so, now our natures are become depraved and sinful? Wherefore we alone were capable of a surety properly so called, for us, we alone stood in need of him, and without him the covenant could not be firm, and inviolate on our parts. The surety therefore of this covenant is so with God for us.

6. It is the Priesthood of Christ that the apostle treats of in this place, and that alone. Wherefore he is a surety as he is a Pri, and in the discharge of that Office, and therefore is so with God on our behalf. This Schlictingius observes, and is aware what will ensue against his pretensions, which he endeavours to obviate. Mirum (says he) porro alicui videri posset cur Divinus author de Christi sacerdotio in superioribus & in sequentibus agens, derepente eum sponsorem foederis non vero sacerdotem vocet? Cur non dixerit tanto praestantioris foederis factus est sacerdos Jesus? hoc enim plane requirere videtur totus orationis contextus. Credibile est in voce sponsionis sacerdotium quoque Christi intelligi. Sponsoris enim non est alieno nomine quippiam promittere, & fidem suam pro alio interponere; sed etiam, si ita res ferat, alterius nomine id quod spopondit praestare. In rebus quidem humanis, si id non praestet is pro quo sponsor fidejussit; hic vero propter contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum habere non pot) nempe quatenus ille pro quo spopondit Christus per ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet; qua in re praecipue Christi sacerdotium continetur.

Ans. (1) It may indeed seem strange unto any one who imagins Christ to be such a surety as he does, why the apostle should so call him, and so introduce him in the description of his Priestly Office, as that which belongs thereunto. But grant what is the proper work and duty of a surety, and who the Lord Jesus was a surety for, and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent could be mentioned by him, when he was in the declaration of that office. (2) He confesss that by his Exposition of this suretiship of Christ, as making him a surety for God, he contradicts the nature and only notion of a surety among men. For such a one he acknowledgs does nothing but in the defect and unability of them for whom he is ingaged, and does undertake. He is to pay that which they owe, and to do what is to be done by them, which they cannot perform. And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place, the apostle makes use of a word no where else used in the whole scripture, to teach us that which it does never signifie among men, which is improbable and absurd. For the sole reason why he did make use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it amongst men in others cases, we may understand the signification of it; what he intends by it, and what under that name he ascribes unto the Lord Jesus. (3) He has no way to solve the apostles mention of Christ being a surety in the description of his Priestly Office, but by overthrowing the nature of that Office also. For to confirm this absurd notion that Christ as a Pri was a surety for God, he would have us believe that the Priesthood of Christ consists in his making effectual unto us the promises of God, or his effectual communicating of the Good things promised unto us; the falshood of which notion really destructive of the Priesthood of Christ, I have elsewhere at large detected and confuted. Wherefore seeing the Lord Christ is a surety of the covenant as a Pri, and all the sacerdotal Actings of Christ have God for their immediate object, and are performed with him on our behalf, he was a surety for us also.

A Surety, Sponsor, Vas, Praes, Fidejussor, for us, the Lord Christ was, by his voluntary undertaking out of his rich grace and love, to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our parts, that we may enjoy the benefits of the covenant, the grace and glory prepared, proposed, and promised in it, in the way and manner determined on by Divine wisdom. And this may be reduced unto two heads. 1. His answering for our Transgressions against the first covenant. 2. His purchase and procurement of the grace of the New. He was made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon us, Galatians 3:13, 1, 15.

1. He undertook as they surety of the covenant to answer for all the sins of those who are to be, and are made partakers of the benefits of it. That is, to undergo the punishment due unto their sins; to make atonement for them, by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for the expiation of their sins, redeeming them by the price of his Blood from their state of misery and bondage under the law and the curse of it, Isaiah 53:4, 5, 6, 10, Matthew 20:28. 1 Timothy 2:6. 1 Corinthians 6:20. Romans 3:25, 26. Hebrews 10:5, 6, 7, 8. Romans 8:2, 3:2 Corinthians 5:19, 20, 21. Galatians 3:13. And this was absolutely necessary that the grace and glory prepared in the covenant might be communicated unto us. Without this undertaking of his, and performance of it, the righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit, that sinners, such as had Apostatized from him, despised his authority and rebelled against him, falling thereby under the sentence and curse of the law, should again be received into his favor, and made Partakers of grace and glory. This therefore the Lord Christ took upon himself, as the surety of the covenant.

2. That those who were to be taken into this covenant should receive grace enabling them to comply with the Terms of it, fulfill its conditions, and yield the obedience which God required therein. For by the Ordination of God, he was to procure, and did merit and procure for them the Holy Spirit, and all needful supplies of grace to make them new creatures, and enable them to yield obedience unto God from a new principle of spiritual life and that faithfully unto the end. So was he the surety of this better testament. But all things belonging hereunto will be handled at large in the place from whence as I said these are taken, as suitable unto our present occasion.

But some have other notions of these things. For they say, that Christ by his death, and his obedience therein, whereby he offered himself a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour unto God, procured for us the New covenant, or as one speaks, all that we have by the death of Christ is, that thereunto we owe the covenant of grace. For herein he did and suffered what God required and freely appointed him to do and suffer. Not that the justice of God required any such thing with respect unto their sins for whom he died, and in whose stead, or to bestead whom, he suffered, but what by a free Constitution of Divine wisdom and Soveraignty was appointed unto him. Hereon, God was pleased to remit the Terms of the Old covenant, and to enter into a New covenant with mankind upon Terms suited unto our reason, possible unto our Abilities, and every way advantageous unto us. For these Terms are faith and sincere obedience, or such an assent unto the truth of Divine Revelations, as is effectual in obedience unto the will of God contained in them, upon the encouragement given thereunto in the promises of Eternal life, or a future reward made therein. On the performance of these conditions our justification, adoption, and future glory do depend; For they are that righteousness before God, whereon he pardons our sins, and accepts our persons, as if we were perfectly righteous. Wherefore by this procuring the New covenant for us, which they ascribe unto the death of Christ, they intend the abrogation of the old covenant, or of the law, or at least such a Derogation from it, that it shall no more oblige us either unto sinless obedience or punishment, nor require a perfect righteousness unto our justification before God; and the Constitution of a new law of obedience accommodated unto our present state and condition, on whose observance all the promises of the gospel do depend.

Others say, that in the death of Christ there was real satisfaction made unto God; not to the law, or unto God according to what the law required; but unto God absolutely. That is, He did what God was well pleased and satisfied withall, without any respect unto his justice or the curse of the law. And they add, that hereon the whole righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, so far, as that we are made Partakers of the benefits thereof. And moreover, that the way of the communication of them unto us, is by the New covenant which by his death the Lord Christ procured. For the conditions of this covenant are established in the covenant it self, whereon God will bestow all the benefits and effects of it upon us, which are faith and obedience. Wherefore what the Lord Christ has done for us is thus far accepted as our legal righteousness, as that God upon our faith and obedience with respect thereunto, does release and pardon all our sins of Omission and Commission. Upon this pardon there is no need of any positive perfect righteousness unto our justification or salvation, but our own personal righteousness is accepted with God in the room of it, by virtue of the New covenant which Christ has procured. So is the doctrine hereof stated by Cursellaeus, and those that join with him, or follow him.

Sundry things there are in these Opinions that deserve an Examination; and they will most, if not all of them, occur unto us in our progress. That which alone we have occasion to inquire into with respect unto what we have discoursed concerning the Lord Christ as surety of the covenant, and which is the Foundation of all that is asserted in them, is, That Christ by his death procured the New covenant for us; which, as one says, is all that we have thereby; which if it should prove otherwise, we are not beholding unto it for any thing at all. But these things must be examined. And,

1. The Terms of procuring the New covenant are ambiguous. It is not as yet (that I know of) by any declared how the Lord Christ did procure it; whether he did so by his satisfaction and obedience, as the meritorious cause of it, or by what other kind of causality. Unless this be stated we are altogether uncertain what relation of the New covenant unto the death of Christ is intended. And to say that thereunto we owe the New covenant, does not mend the matter, but rather render the Terms more ambiguous. Neither is it declared whether the Constitution of the covenant, or the communication of the benefits of it are intended. It is yet no less general, That God was so well pleased with what Christ did, as that hereon he made and entered into a New covenant with mankind. This they may grant who yet deny the whole satisfaction and merit of Christ. If they mean that the Lord Christ by his obedience and suffering did meritoriously procure the making and establishing of the New covenant, which was all that he so procured, and the entire effect of his death, what they say may be understood, but the whole nature of the mediation of Christ is overthrown thereby.

2. This Opinion is liable unto a great Prejudice, in that whereas it is in such a Fundamental Article of our religion, and about that wherein the Eternal Welfare of the church is so nearly concerned, there is no mention made of it in the scripture. For is it not strange that if this be, as some speak, the sole effect of the death of Christ, whereas sundry other things are frequently in the scripture ascribed unto it, as the effects and fruits thereof, that this which is only so should be no where mentioned, neither in express words, nor such as will allow of this sense by any just or lawful consequence. Our redemption, pardon of sins, the Renovation of our natures, our sanctification, justification, peace with God, Eternal life, are all joyntly and severally assigned thereunto in places almost without number. But it is no where said in the scripture, that Christ by his death, merited, procured, obtained, the New covenant; or that God should enter into a New covenant with mankind; yea as we shall see, that which is contrary unto it, and inconsistent with it, is frequently asserted.

3. To clear the truth herein, we must consider the several notions and causes of the New covenant; with the true and real respect of the death of Christ thereunto. And it is variously represented unto us.

1. In the Designation and Preparation of its Terms and benefits in the counsel of God. And this although it have the nature of an Eternal decree, yet is it not the same with the decree of election, as some suppose. For that properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared. This is the Preparation of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. Some learned men do judge that this counsel and purpose of the will of God, to give grace and glory in and by Jesus Christ unto the elect in the way and by the means by him prepared, is formally the covenant of grace, or at least that the substance of the covenant is comprized therein. But it is certain, that more is required to compleat the whole nature of a covenant. Nor is this purpose or counsel of God called the covenant in the scripture, but is only proposed as the spring and fountain of it, Ephesians 1. [••] 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Unto the full Exemplification of the covenant of grace, there is required the declaration of this counsel of Gods will, accompanied with the means and powers of its Accomplishment, and the Prescription of the ways whereby we are so to be interessed in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the New covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration. For nothing can be the procuring cause of the covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it, of this Idea of it in the mind of God, of the preparation of its Terms and benefits. But this is no where in the scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ; and to ascribe it thereunto, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely Eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or procured by any thing that is external and temporal.

2. It may be considered with respect unto the foederal Transactions between the father and the Son, concerning the Accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large; Exercitat. Vol. 2. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the scripture. But yet some will not distinguish between the covenant of the Mediator and the covenant of grace, because the promises of the covenant absolutely are said to be made to Christ, Galatians 3:16. and he is the , or first subject of all the grace of it. But in the covenant of the Mediator, Christ stands alone for himself, and undertakes for himself alone, and not as the Repretsentive of the church. But this he is in the covenant of grace. But this is that wherein it had its designed establishment as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its Accomplishment; and all things so disposed as that it might be effectual unto the eternal glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause, but that which was the cause of this covenant of the Mediator, or of God the father with the Son, as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is no where ascribed unto the death of Christ in the scripture, so to assert it, is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ by his death should procure the Agreement between God and him, that he should dye.

3. With respect unto the declaration of it by especial Revelation. This we may call Gods making or establishing of it, if we please; though making of the covenant in scripture, is applied principally, if not only, unto its execution or actual application unto persons, 2 Samuel 23:5. Jerem. 32:40. This declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the Mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glory, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold,

1. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; so was it first: declared unto, and established with Adam, and afterwards with Abraham. The promise is the declaration of the purpose of God before declared, or the free Determination and counsel of his will, as to his dealing with sinners on the supposition of the Fall, and their forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God was the only cause, Hebrews 8:8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement, For he himself and all that he was to do for us, was the substance of that promise. And this promise as it is declarative of the purpose or counsel of the will of God, for the communication of grace and glory unto sinners, in and by the mediation of Christ, according to the ways and on the Terms prepared and disposed in his Soveraign wisdom and pleasure, is formally the New covenant, though something yet is to be added to compleat its application unto us. Now the substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprized, directly respected and expressed, the giving of him for the Recovery of Mankind from sin and misery by his death, Genesis 3:15. Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant it self, then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.

2. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God, that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interessed in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprized in the absolute promise (for every promise of God does tacitly require faith and obedience in us) is expressed in other places by the way of the condition required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the Constitution of the Terms on our part, whereon we are made Partakers of it. Nor is the Constitution of these Terms, an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the Soveraign grace and wisdom of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the Constitution of them to be the Terms and conditions of the covenant is an Acts of mere Soveraign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only begotten Son to dye, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life Everlasting. But yet it is granted that the Constitution of these Terms of the covenant does respect the foederal Transaction between the father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of Gods grace; and so although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of Gods making the New covenant, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our Mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace and love of God, as it is every where expressed in the scripture.

4thly, The covenant may be considered as unto the actual application of the grace, benefit and Priviledges of it unto any persons, whereby they are made real partakers of them, or are taken into covenant with God. And this alone in the scripture is intended by Gods making a covenant with any. It is not a general Revelation, or declaration of the Terms and nature of the covenant (which some call an universal conditional covenant, on what grounds they know best, seeing the very formal nature of making a covenant with any, includes the actual Acceptation of it, and participation of the benefits of it by them) but a communication of the grace of it, accompanied with a prescription of obedience, that is Gods making his covenant with any, as all instances of it in the scripture do declare.

It may be therefore enquired, what respect the covenant of grace has unto the death of Christ, or what Influence it has thereunto.

I answer, supposing what is spoken of his being a surety thereof it has a threefold respect thereunto.

1. In that the covenant, as the grace and glory of it were prepared in the counsel of God, as the Terms of it, was fixed in the covenant of the Mediator, and as it was declared in the promise, was confirmed, ratified, and made irrevocable thereby. This our apostle insists upon at large, Hebrews 9:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. And he compares his Blood in his death and sacrifice of himself, unto the Sacrifices and their Blood whereby the Old covenant was confirmed, purified, dedicated or established, verse 18, 19. Now these Sacrifices did not procure that covenant, or prevail with God to enter into it; but only ratified and confirmed it; and this was done in the New covenant by the Blood of Christ.

2. He thereby underwent and performed all that which in the righteousness and wisdom of God was required, that the effects, Fruits, benefits and grace, intended, designed, and prepared in the New covenant might be effectually accomplished, and communicated unto sinners. Hence although he procured not the covenant for us by his death, yet he was in his person, mediation, life and death, the only cause and means whereby the whole grace of the covenant is made effectual unto us. For,

3. All the benefits of it were procured by him; that is, all the grace, mercy, Priviledges and glory that God has prepared in the counsel of his will, that were fixed as unto the way of this communication in the covenant of the Mediator, and proposed in the promises of it, are purchased, merited, and procured by his death; and effectually communicated or applied unto all the Covenanters by virtue thereof, with others of his Mediatory Acts And this is much more an eminent procuring of the New covenant, than what is pretended about the procurement of its Terms and conditions. For if he should have procured no more but this, if we owe this only unto his mediation, that God would thereon, or did grant and establish this rule, law, and promise, that whoever ever believed should be saved, it were possible that no one should be saved thereby; yea if he did no more, considering our state and condition, it was impossible that any one should so be.

To give the sum of these things, it is inquired with respect unto which of these considerations of the new covenant, it is affirmed that it was procured by the death of Christ. If it be said, that it is with respect unto the actual communication of all the grace and glory prepared in the covenant, and proposed unto us in the promises of it; it is most true. All the grace and glory promised in the covenant was purchased for the church by Jesus Christ. In this sense by his death he procured the new covenant. This the whole scripture from the Beginning of it in the first promise unto the end of it, does bear witness unto. For it is in him alone that God blesss us with all spiritual Blessings in Heavenly things. Let all the good things that are mentioned or promised in the covenant expressly, or by just consequence, be summed up, and it will be no hard matter to demonstrate concerning them all, and that both joyntly and severally, that they were all procured for us by the obedience and death of Christ.

But this is not that which is intended. For most of this Opinion do deny, that the grace of the covenant in conversion unto God, the remission of sins, sanctification, justification, adoption, and the like, are the effects or procurements of the death of Christ. And they do on the other hand declare, that it is Gods making of the covenant which they do intend: that is the contrivance of the terms and conditions of it, with their proposal unto mankind for their Recovery. But herein there is . For

1. The Lord Christ himself, and the whole work of his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the Recovery and salvation of lost sinners, is the first and principal promise of the covenant. So his Exhibition in the flesh, his work of mediation therein with our deliverance thereby, was the subject of that first promise, which virtually contained this whole covenant. So he was of the Renovation of it unto Abraham when it was solemnly confirmed by the Oath of God, Galatians 3:16, 17. And Christ did not by his death procure the promise of his death, nor of his Exhibition in the flesh, or his coming into the world, that he might dye.

2. The making of this covenant is every where in the scripture ascribed (as is also the sending of Christ himself to dye) unto the love, grace and wisdom of God alone; no where unto the death of Christ, as the actual communication of all grace and glory are. Let all the places be considered, where either the giving of the promise, the sending of Christ, or the making of the covenant are mentioned, either expressly or virtually, and in none of them are they assigned unto any other cause, but the grace, love, and wisdom of God alone, all to be made effectual unto us, by the mediation of Christ.

3. The assignation of the sole end of the death of Christ to be the procurement of the new covenant in the sense contended for, does indeed evacuate all the vertue of the death of Christ and of the covenant it self. For (1) the covenant which they intend, is nothing but the Constitution and proposal of new Terms and conditions for life and salvation unto all men. Now whereas the acceptance and accomplishment of these conditions, depend upon the Wills of men no way determined by effectual grace, it was possible that notwithstanding all Christ did by his death, yet no one sinner might be saved thereby, but that the whole end and design of God therein might be frustrate. (2) Whereas the substantial advantage of these conditions lieth herein, that God will now for the sake of Christ, accept of an obedience, inferior unto that required in the law, and so as that the grace of Christ does not raise up all things unto a conformity and compliance with the holiness and will of God declared therein, but accommodate all things unto our present condition, nothing can be invented more dishonourable to Christ and the gospel. For what does it else but make Christ the minister of sin, in disanulling the holiness that the law requires, or the obligation of the law unto it, without any provision of what might answer, or come into the Room of it, but that which is incomparably less worthy. Nor is it consistent with Divine wisdom, goodness, and Immutability, to appoint unto mankind a law of obedience, and cast them all under the sever penalty upon the Transgression of it, when he could in justice and honor, have given them such a law of obedience, whose observance might consist with many failings and sins. For if he have done that now, he could have done so before, which how far it reflects on the glory of the Divine properties might be easily manifested. Neither does this fond Imagination comply with those testimonies of scripture, that the Lord Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, that he is the end of the law, and that by faith the law is not disanulled but established.

Lastly, the Lord Christ was the Mediator and Surety of the new covenant, in and by whom it was ratified, confirmed and established; and therefore by him the Constitution of it was not procured. For all the Acts of his Office belong unto that mediation; And it cannot be well apprehended how any Acts of mediation for the Establishment of the covenant and rendring it effectual, should procure it.

But to return from this Digression; That wherein all the precedent causes of the union between Christ and believers, whence they become one mystical person, do center, and whereby they are rendred a compleat foundation of the imputation of their sins unto him, and of his righteousness unto them, is the communication of his Spirit, the same Spirit that dwells in him, unto them, to abide in, to animate and guide the whole mystical body and all its Members. But this has of late been so much spoken unto, as that I shall do no more but mention it.

On the considerations insisted on, whereby the Lord Christ became one mystical person with the church, or bare the person of the church in what he did as Mediator, in the Holy Wise disposal of God as the Authour of the law, the supreme Rector or Governour of all mankind, as unto their Temporal and Eternal concernments, and by his own consent, the sins of all the elect were imputed unto him. This having been the faith and Language of the church in all Ages, and that derived from and founded in express testimonies of scripture, with all the promises and Presignations of his Exhibition in the flesh from the beginning, cannot now with any modesty be expressly denied. Wherefore the socinians themselves grant that our sins may be said to be imputed unto Christ, and he to undergo the punishment of them, so far as that all things which befell him Evil and Afflictive in this life, with the death which he underwent, were occasioned by our sins. For had not we sinned, there had been no need of, nor occasion for his suffering. But notwithstanding this concession they expressly deny his satisfaction, or that properly he underwent the punishment due unto our sins; wherein they deny also all imputation of them unto him. Others say that our sins were imputed unto him, quoad reatum poenae, but not quoad reatum culpae. But I must acknowledge that unto me this distinction gives inanem sine mente sonum. The substance of it is much insisted on by Feuardentius, Dialog. 5. pag. 467. And he is followed by others. That which he would prove by it, is, That the Lord Christ did not present himself before the throne of God, with the burden of our sins upon him, so as to answer unto the justice of God for them. Whereas therefore reatus, or guilt, may signifie either Dignitatem poenae or obligationem ad poenam, as Bellarmine distinguishs, de Amiss. Grat. lib. 7. cap. 7. with respect unto Christ, the latter only is to be admitted. And the main argument he and others insist upon, is this; That if our sins be imputed unto Christ, as unto the guilt of the fault, as they speak, then he must be polluted with them, and thence be denominated a sinner in every kind. And this would be true, if our sins could be Communicated unto Christ by Transfusion, so as to be his inherently and subjectively. But their being so only by imputation gives no countenance unto any such pretence. However there is a notion of legal uncleanness, where there is no inherent defilement. So the Pri who offered the Red Heifer to make atonement, and he that burned her, were said to be unclean, Numb. 19:7, 8. But hereon they say, that Christ dyed and suffered upon the special command of God, not that his death and suffering were any way due upon the account of our sins; or required in justice, which is utterly to overthrow the satisfaction of Christ.

Wherefore the design of this distinction, is to deny the imputation of the guilt of our sins unto Christ, and then in what tolerable sense can they be said to be imputed unto him, I cannot understand. But we are not tyed up unto Arbitrary distinction, and the sense that any are pleased to impose on the terms of them. I shall therefore first inquire into the meaning of these words, guilt and guilty, whereby we may be able to judge of what it is, which in this distinction is intended.

The Hebrews have no other word to signifie guilt or guilty but . And this they use both for sin, the guilt of it, the punishment due unto it, and a sacrifice for it. Speaking of the guilt of Blood, they use not any word to signifie guilt, but only say it is Blood to him. So David prays deliver me from Blood, which we render Blood-guiltiness, Psalm 51:14. And this was, because by the Constitution of God, he that was guilty of Blood, was to dye by the hand of the Magistiate, or of God himself. But Ascham is no where used for guilt, but it signifies the relation of the sin intended unto punishment. And other significations of it will be in vain sought for in the old testament.

In the new testament, he that is guilty, is said to be , Romans 3:19. that is, obnoxious to judgment or vengeance for sin; one that , as they speak, Acts 28:4. whom vengeance will not suffer to go unpunished. And , 1 Corinthians 11:27. a word of the same signification. Once by , Matthew 23:18. to owe, to be indebted to justice. To be obnoxious, liable unto justice, Vengeance, punishment for sin, is to be guilty.

Reus, guilty in the Latine is of a large signification. He who is Crimini obnoxius, or Poenae propter Crimen, or Voti debitor, or Promissi, or officij ex sponsione, is called, Reus. Especially every sponsor or Surety, is Reus in the law. Cum servus pecuniam pro libertate pactus est, & ob eam rem, Reum dederit, (that is, sponsorem, expromissorem) quamvis servus ab alio manumissus est, Reus tamen obligabitur. He is Reus who ingags himself for any other, as to the matter of his ingagement. And the same is the use of the word in the best Latine authors. Opportuna loca dividenda Praefectis esse ac suae quique partis tutandae reus sit. Liv. de Bello Punic. lib. 5. That every Captain should so take care of the Station committed to him, as that if any thing happened amiss, it should be imputed unto him. And the same author again, at quicunque aut propinquitate aut affinitate regiam contigissent, alienae culpae rei trucidarentur, should be guilty of the fault of another, (by imputation) and suffer for it. So that in the Latine Tongue he is Reus, who for himself or any other is obnoxious unto punishment or payment.

Reatus is a word of late admission into the Latine Tongue, and was formed of Reus. So Quintilian informs us in his discourse of the use of obsolete and new words, lib. 8. cap. 3. Quae vetera nunc sunt, fuerunt olim nova; quaedam in usu perquam recentia. Messalla primus Reatum, munerarium Augustus dixerunt; To which he adds Piratica, Musica, and some others then newly come into use. But Reatus at its first Invention was of no such signification as it is now applied unto. I mention it only to shew, that we have no reason to be obliged unto mens Arbitrary use of words. Some Lawyers first used it, pro crimine, a fault, exposing unto punishment. But the Original Invention of it continued by long use, was to express the outward state and condition of him who was Reus, after he was first charged in a cause criminal before he was acquitted or condemned. Those among the Romans who were made Rei by any public accusation, did betake themselves unto a poor squalid Habit, a sorrowful countenance, suffering their Hair and Beards to go undressed; Hereby on Custome and Usage, the people who were to judge on their cause, were enclined to compassion. And Milo furthered his sentence of Banishment, because he would not submit to this custom which had such an appearance of Pusillanimity and baseness of Spirit. This state of sorrow and trouble so expressed, they called Reatus and nothing else. It came afterwards to denote their state who were committed unto custody in order unto their trial, when the Government ceased to be popular, wherein alone the other Artifice was of use. And if this word be of any use in our present argument, it is to express the state of men after conviction of sin, before their justification. That is their Reatus, the condition wherein the proudest of them cannot avoid to express their inward sorrow and anxiety of mind, by some outward evidences of them. Beyond this we are not obliged by the use of this word, but must consider the thing it self which now we intend to express thereby.

Guilt in the scripture is the Respect of sin unto the sanction of the law, whereby the sinner becomes obnoxious unto punishment. And to be guilty is to be , liable unto punishment for sin, from God, as the supreme Lawgiver and judge of all. And so guilt or Reatus is well defined to be obligatio ad poenam, propter culpam, aut admissam in se, aut imputatam, juste aut injuste. For so Bathsheba says unto David, that she and her Son Solomon should be sinners, that is, be esteemed guilty or liable unto punishment for some evil laid unto their charge, 1 kings 1:21. And the distinction of Dignitas poenae, and obligatio ad poenam, is but the same thing in divers words. For both do but express the relation of sin unto the sanction of the law, or if they may be conceived to differ, yet are they inseparable; for there can be no obligatio ad poenam, where there is not dignitas poenae.

Much less is there any thing of weight in the distinction of Reatus culpae, and Reatus poenae. For this Reatus culpae is nothing but dignitas poenae propter culpam. sin has other considerations, namely, its formal nature, as it is a Transgression of the law; and the stain or filth that it brings upon the soul; but the guilt of it, is nothing but its respect unto punishment from the sanction of the law. And so indeed Reatus culpae, is Reatus poenae; the guilt of sin, is its desert of punishment. And where there is not this Reatus culpae, there can be no poena, no punishment properly so called. For poena is vindicta noxae, the revenge due to sin. So therefore there can be no punishment, nor Reatus poenae, the guilt of it, but where there is Reatus culpae; or sin considered with its guilt. And the Reatus poenae, that may be supposed without the guilt of sin, is nothing but that obnoxiousness unto afflictive evil on the occasion of sin, which the socinians admit with respect unto the suffering of Christ, and yet execrate his satisfaction.

And if this distinction should be apprehended to be of Reatus, from its formal respect unto sin and punishment, it must in both parts of the distinction be of the same signification, otherwise there is an equivocation in the subject of it. But reatus poenae is a liableness, an obnoxiousness unto punishment according to the sentence of the law; that whereby a sinner becomes . And then Reatus culpae must be an obnoxiousness unto sin, which is uncouth. There is therefore no imputation of sin, where there is no imputation of its Guilt. For the Guilt of punishment, which is not its respect unto the desert of sin, is a plain fiction, there is no such thing in rerum natura. There is no Guilt of sin, but its relation unto punishment.

That therefore which we affirm herein is, That our sins were so transferred on Christ, as that thereby he became , Reus, responsible unto God, and obnoxious unto punishment in the justice of God for them. He was alienae culpae reus. Perfectly innocent in himself; but took our Guilt on him, or our obnoxiousness unto punishment for sin. And so he may be, and may be said to be the greatest Debtor in the world who never borrowed nor owed one farthing on his own account, if he become surety for the greatest debt of others. So Paul became a Debtor unto Philemon, upon his undertaking for Onesimus, who before owed him nothing.

And two things concurred unto this imputation of sin unto Christ. (1) The Acts of God imputing it. (2) The voluntary Acts of Christ himself in the undertaking of it, or admitting of the charge.

1. The Acts of God in this imputation of the Guilt of our sins unto Christ, is expressed by his laying all our Iniquities upon him, making him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, and the like. For (1) as the supream Governour, law-giver, and judge of all, unto whom it belonged to take care that his holy law was observed, or the offenders punished, He admitted upon the Transgression of it, the sponsion and suretiship of Christ to answer for the sins of men, Hebrews 10:5, 6, 7. (2) In order unto this end, he made him under the law, or gave the law power over him, to demand of him, and inflict on him the penalty which was due unto the sins of them for whom he undertook, Galatians 3:13. chap. 4:4, 5. (3) For the declaration of the righteousness of God in this setting forth of Christ to be a propitiation, and to bear our Iniquities, the Guilt of our sins was transferred unto him in an Acts of the righteous judgment of God, accepting and esteeming of him as the Guilty person; as it is with public sureties in every case.

2. The Lord Christ voluntary susception of the state and condition of a surety, or undertaker for the church, to appear before the throne of Gods justice for them, to answer whatever was laid unto their charge, was required hereunto. And this he did absolutely. There was a concurrence of his own will in and unto all those Divine Acts whereby he and the church were constituted one mystical person. And of his own love and grace did he as our surety stand in our stead before God, where he made Inquisition for sin; He took it on himself, as unto the punishment which it deserved. Hence it became just and righteous that he should suffer, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God. For if this be not so, I desire to know what is become of the Guilt of the sins of believers; If it were not transferred on Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing. It will be said that Guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But if so, there was no need of punishment for it at all; which is indeed what the socinians plead, but by others is not admitted. For if punishment be not for Guilt, it is not punishment.

But it is fiercely objected against what we have asserted, that if the Guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ, then was he constituted a sinner thereby; for it is the Guilt of sin that makes any one to be truly a sinner. This is urged by Bellarmin; lib. 2. de Justificat. not for its own sake, but to disprove the imputation of his righteousness unto us, as it is continued by others with the same design. For, says he, if we be made righteous, and the Children of God through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, then was he made a sinner, & quod horret animus cogitare, filius Diaboli; by the imputation of the Guilt of our sins, or our Unrighteousness unto him. And the same objection is pressed by others, with instances of consequences, which for many reasons I heartily wish had been forborn. But I answer,

1. Nothing is more absolutely true, nothing is more sacredly or assuredly believed by us, then, that nothing which Christ did or suffered, nothing that he undertook or underwent, did or could constitute him, subjectively, inherently, and thereon personally a sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To bear the Guilt or Blame of other mens faults, to be alienae culpae reus, makes no man a sinner, unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake it. But that Christ should admit of any thing of sin in himself, as it is absolutely inconsistent with the Hypostatical union, so it would render him unmeet for all other duties of his Office, Hebrews 7:25, 26. And confess it has always seemed scandalous unto me, that Socinus, Crellius, and Grotius, do grant that in some sense Christ suffered for his own sins, and would prove it from that very place wherein it is positively denied, Hebrews 7:27. This ought to be sacredly fixed, and not a word used, nor thought entertained of any possibility of the contrary, upon any supposition whatever.

2. None ever dreamed of a Transfusion or propagation of sin from us unto Christ, such as there was from Adam unto us. For Adam was a common person unto us, we are not so to Christ; yea he is so to us; and the imputation of our sins unto him, as a singular Acts of Divine dispensation, which no evil consequent can ensue upon.

3. To imagine such an imputation of our sins unto Christ, as that thereon they should cease to be our sins, and become his absolutely, is to overthrow that which is affirmed. For on that supposition Christ would not suffer for our sins, for they ceased to be ours, antecedently unto his suffering. But the Guilt of them was so transferred unto him, that through his suffering for it, it might be pardoned unto us.

These things being premised, I say,

1. There is in sin a Transgression of the Preceptive part of the law, and there is an obnoxiousness unto the punishment from the Sanction of it. It is the first that gives sin its formal nature, and where that is not subjectively, no person can be constituted formally a sinner. However, any one may be so denominated as unto some certain end or purpose, yet without this, formally a sinner none can be, whatever be imputed unto them. And where that is, no non-imputation of sin as unto punishment, can free the person in whom it is, from being formally a sinner. When Bathsheba told David that she and her Son Solomon should be sinners, by having crimes laid unto their charge; and when Judah told Jacob, that he would be a sinner before him always on the account of any evil that befell Benjamin, (it should be imputed unto him) yet neither of them could thereby be constituted a sinner formally. And on the other hand, when Shimei desired David not to impute sin unto him, whereby he escaped present punishment yet did not that non-imputation free him formally from being a sinner. Wherefore sin under this consideration as a Transgression of the Preceptive part of the law, cannot be communicated from one unto another, unless it be by the propagation of a vitiated principle or Habit. But yet neither so will the personal sin of one as inherent in him, ever come to be the personal sin of another. Adam has upon his personal sin communicated a vitious, depraved, and corrupted nature unto all his Posterity; and besides, the guilt of his actual sin is imputed unto them, as if it had been committed by every one of them. But yet his particular personal sin, neither ever did, nor ever could become the personal sin of any one of them, any otherwise than by the imputation of its guilt unto them. Wherefore our sins neither are, nor can be so imputed unto Christ, as that they should become subjectively his, as they are a Transgression of the Preceptive part of the law. A Physical Translation or Transfusion of sin is in this case naturally and spiritually impossible; and yet on a supposition thereof alone, do the horrid consequences mentioned depend. But the guilt of sin is an external respect of it, with regard unto the sanction of the law only. This is separable from sin, and if it were not so no one sinner could either be pardoned or saved. It may therefore be made anothers by imputation, and yet that other not rendered formally a sinner thereby. This was that which was imputed unto Christ, whereby he was rendred obnoxious unto the curse of the law. For it was impossible that the law should pronounce any accursed but the guilty; nor would do so, Deuteronomy 27:26.

2. There is a great difference between the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, and the imputation of our sins unto Christ; so as that he cannot in the same manner be said to be made a sinner by the one, as we are made righteous by the other. For our sin was imputed unto Christ only, as he was our Surety for a time, to this end, that he might take it away, destroy it and abolish it. It was never imputed unto him, so as to make any alteration absolutely in his personal state and condition. But his righteousness is imputed unto us, to abide with us, to be ours always, and to make a total change in our state and condition as unto our relation unto God. Our sin was imputed unto him, only for a season, not absolutely, but as he was a Surety, and unto the special end of destroying it; and taken on him, on this condition that his righteousness should be made ours for ever. All things are otherwise in the imputation of his righteousness unto us, which respects us absolutely, and not under a temporary capacity, abides with us for ever, changs our state and relation unto God, and is an effect of super-abounding grace.

But it will be said, that if our sins as to the guilt of them were imputed unto Christ, then God must hate Christ. For he hats the guilty. I know not well how I come to mention these things, which indeed I look upon as cavils, such as men may multiply if they please, against any part of the mysteries of the gospel. But seeing it is mentioned, it may be spoken unto. And

1. It is certain that the Lord Christ's taking on him the guilt of our sins, was an high act of obedience unto God, Hebrews 10:5, 6. And for which the father loved him, John 10:17, 18. There was therefore no reason why God should hate Christ, for his taking on him our debt and the payment of it, in an Acts of the highest obedience unto his will. (2) God in this matter is considered as a Rector, Ruler and judge. Now it is not required of the sever judge, that as a judge he should hate the guilty person, no although he be guilty Originally by Inhaesion and not by imputation. As such, he has no more to do, but consider the guilt, and pronounce the sentence of punishment. But (3) suppose a person out of an Heroick generosity of mind should become an for another, for his friend, for a good man, so as to answer for him with his life, as Judah undertook to be for Benjamin as to his liberty, which when a man has lost, he is civilly dead, and capite diminutus, would the most cruel Tyrant under heaven that should take away his life, in that case hate him; would he not rather admire his worth and vertue. As such an one it was that Christ suffered, and no otherwise. (4) All the force of this exception depends on the ambiguity of the word hate. For it may signifie either an aversation or detestation of mind, or only a will of punishing, as in God mostly it does. In the first sense there was no ground why God should hate Christ on this imputation of guilt unto him; whereby he became non propriae sed alienae culpae Reus. sin inherent renders the soul polluted, abominable, and the only object of Divine Aversation. But for him who was perfectly Innocent, Holy, Harmless, undefiled in himself, who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth, to take upon him the guilt of other sins, thereby to comply with and accomplish the design of God for the manifestation of his glory and infinite wisdom, grace, goodness, mercy, and righteousness, unto the certain expiation and destruction of sin, nothing could render him more glorious and lovely in the sight of God or man. But for a will of punishing in God, where sin is imputed, none can deny it, but they must therewithal openly disavow the satisfaction of Christ.

The heads of some few of those arguments wherewith the truth we have asserted is confirmed, shall close this discourse.

1. Unless the guilt of sin was imputed unto Christ, sin was not imputed unto him in any sense; For the punishment of sin is not sin; nor can those who are otherwise minded, declare what it is of sin, that is imputed. But the scripture is plain, that God laid on him the iniquity of us all, and made him to be sin for us, which could not otherwise be but by imputation.

2. There can be no punishment but with respect unto the guilt of sin personally contracted, or imputed. It is guilt alone that gives what is materially evil and afflictive, the formal nature of punishment and nothing else. And therefore those who understand full well the Harmony of things and Opinions, and are free to express their minds, do constantly declare, that if one of these be denied, the other must be so also; and if one be admitted they must both be [〈1 page duplicate〉][〈1 page duplicate〉] so. If guilt was not imputed unto Christ, he could not, as they plead well enough, undergo the punishment of sin; much he might do and suffer on the occasion of sin, but undergo the punishment due unto sin he could not. And if it should be granted that the guilt of sin was imputed unto him, they will not deny but that he underwent the punishment of it; and if he underwent the punishment of it, they will not deny but that the guilt of it was imputed unto him; For these things are inseparably related.

3. Christ was made a curse for us, the curse of the law; as is expressly declared, Galatians 3:13, 14. But the curse of the law respects the guilt of sin only; So as that where that is not, it cannot take place in any sense, and where that is, it does inseparably attend it, Deuteronomy 27:26.

4. The express testimonies of the scripture unto this purpose cannot be evaded, without an open wresting of their words and sense. So God is said to make all our Iniquities to meet with upon him; and he bare them on him as his burden, for so the word signifies, Isaiah 53:6. God has laid on him, the iniquity, that is, the guilt of us all, verse 11. and their sin or guilt shall he bear. For that is the intendment of , where joyned with any other word that denotes sin as it is in those places, Psalm 32:5. you forgav the iniquity of my sin, that is, the guilt of it, which is that alone that is taken away by pardon. That his soul was made an offering for the guilt of sin, that he was made sin, that sin was condemned in his flesh, &c.

5. This was represented in all the Sacrifices of old, especially the great Anniversary, on the day of expiation, with the ordinance of the Scape Goat, as has been before declared.

6. Without a supposition hereof it cannot be understood, how the Lord Christ should be our or suffer , in our stead, unless we will admit the exposition of Mr. Ho. a late writer, who reckoning up how many things the Lord Christ did in our stead, adds as the sense thereof, that is to bestead us; then which if he can invent any thing more fond and senseless, he has a singular faculty in such an Employment.

Those who believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers for the justification of life also unanimously affirm that the sins of all believers were imputed to Christ. They do so on the basis of many scriptural testimonies that directly support this, some of which will be cited and defended later. For now, we are only examining the general concept of these things and explaining the nature of what will be proved afterward. We will first inquire into the foundation of this arrangement of God and the justice of it — the grounds on which it rests — without an understanding of which the thing itself cannot be properly grasped.

The principal foundation of this is that Christ and the church, in this design, were one mystical person — a union they actually realize through the uniting work of the Holy Spirit. He is the head, and believers are the members of that one person, as the apostle declares (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Therefore, just as what He did is imputed to them as if they had done it, so what they deserved on account of sin was charged to Him. A learned bishop expresses it this way: "He sustained our cause, He who had united our flesh to Himself, and being thus most closely bound to us, He made what was ours His own." And again: "What wonder if, placed in our person and clothed in our flesh, etc." (Montacutus, Origines Ecclesiasticae). The ancient fathers speak to the same effect. Leo writes (Sermon 17): "Therefore divine power joined itself to human weakness, so that while God made what was ours to be His, He might make what was His to be ours." He also writes (Sermon 16): "Our Lord Jesus Christ, transforming all the members of His body into Himself, cried out in the suffering of the cross, in the voice of His redeemed, what He had once uttered in the Psalm." Augustine speaks to the same point (Epistle 120, to Honoratus): "We hear the voice of the body from the mouth of the head. The church suffered in Him when He suffered for the church." Just as we have heard the voice of the church in Christ's suffering — "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" — so we have heard the voice of Christ in the church's suffering — "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" We may look a little further back and deeper into the understanding of the ancient church on this matter. Irenaeus writes: "Christ recapitulated in Himself all the nations scattered from Adam, and the whole race of humanity. For this reason Paul called Adam himself the type of the one to come" (Against Heresies, lib. 3, cap. 33). And again: "Recapitulating in Himself the entire human race from beginning to end, He also recapitulated death itself." In this concept of recapitulation he clearly had in mind the word used in Ephesians 1:10. Origen perhaps intended something similar, though obscurely, when he said that the soul of the first Adam was the soul of Christ — at least as the charge against Him is to be understood. Cyprian writes, in his letter on the administration of the Eucharist (Epistle 63): "Christ bore all of us — He who also bore our sins." He bore us — that is, He suffered in our person — when He bore our sins. Athanasius therefore affirms, concerning the cry Christ made on the cross, that "we suffered in Him." Eusebius says many things to this effect (Demonstration of the Gospel, lib. 10, cap. 1). Expounding the words of the Psalmist — "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You" — and applying them to our Savior in His sufferings, he writes: "Because He took our sins to Himself, He communicated our sins to Himself, making them His own" — and he adds: "making our sins His own." Because in the words that follow he fully expresses what I intend to prove, I will quote him at length.

I have quoted this passage at length because, as I said, it fully sets out what I intend to prove in this discussion. He speaks as follows: "How then did He make our sins His own, and how did He bear our iniquities? Is it not from this: that we are said to be His body — as the apostle says, 'You are the body of Christ, and members individually' — and just as when one member suffers all the members suffer, so He, seeing the many members sinning and suffering, and being united to us all in the same nature, and taking on the form of a servant according to the laws of sympathy within the same body, took upon Himself the sorrows of the suffering members, made all their infirmities His own, and according to the laws of humanity in that same body, bore our grief and labor for us. The Lamb of God not only did these things for us, but He endured torment and punishment for us — punishment He was in no way liable to for His own sake, though we were by the multitude of our sins. He became the cause of the pardon of our sins because He underwent death, stripes, and reproaches, transferring to Himself what we had deserved; and He was made a curse for us, taking upon Himself the curse that was due to us. For what was He but a substitute for us — a ransom price for our souls? In our person, therefore, the oracle speaks — while He freely united Himself to us and us to Himself, and made our sins and our sufferings His own — 'Lord, be merciful to me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.'"

That our sins were transferred to Christ and made His, that He thereupon underwent the punishment due to us for them, and that the ground and justice of this rests in the union between Him and us — all of this is fully expressed in this passage. The learned and moving author of the Homilies on Matthew 5 in the works attributed to Chrysostom (Homily 54, the last of them) says: "In His flesh He took on all flesh; crucified, He crucified all flesh in Himself." He is speaking of the church. Other fathers speak in similar terms frequently: that He bore us, that He took us with Him to the cross, that we were all crucified in Him. As Prosper writes: "He is not saved by the cross of Christ who is not crucified in Christ" (Response to the Articles of the Gauls, cap. 9).

This, then, is the foundation of the imputation of the church's sins to Christ: He and the church are one person. The grounds of that union must now be examined.

At this point various discussions and inquiries arise: what a person is, in what sense and in how many senses the word may be used, what the true concept of personhood is, what a natural person is, what a legal or civil or political person is — areas in which some have fallen into errors. If we were to enter that territory, we would find more than enough material for debate. But these things do not belong to our present concern, and they do not illuminate the union of Christ and the church — they obscure it. Christ and believers are neither one natural person, nor a legal or political person, nor any kind of person that human law, custom, or convention recognizes or allows for. They are one mystical person. Although some imperfect resemblances to this union can be found in natural or political unions, the union itself — from which the designation is drawn — is of a nature and arises from causes that have no counterpart in any personal union among human beings. Because this union is beyond our weak understanding, which cannot grasp the depths of heavenly mysteries, it is compared in Scripture to unions of various kinds. It is represented by the union of husband and wife — not merely in the affections that give them a moral bond, but grounded in the creation of the first woman from the flesh and bone of the first man, and in God's institution of their lifelong companionship. The apostle explains this at length in Ephesians 5:25-32, concluding that by the union thus represented, we are "members of His body" (verse 30) — having the same relation to Christ that Eve had to Adam when she was made from his flesh and bone, and so became one flesh with him. The union is also compared to that of the head and members of a natural body (1 Corinthians 12:12), and to a political union between a ruling head and those it governs — though never to the exclusion of the natural head-and-members relationship expressed in the same language (Ephesians 4:15; Colossians 2:19). It is also compared to things in nature, such as a vine and its branches (John 15:1-3), and it is illuminated by the relationship between Adam and his descendants established by God's institution and the law of creation (Romans 5:12). By representing the union between Christ and believers through such a variety of analogies — things that share only the general concept of union but arise from different grounds — the Holy Spirit sufficiently indicates that this union is not reducible to any one of those kinds. This will become even clearer when we consider the causes and foundations of the union. Since dealing with these at length would require more time than this occasion permits, I will only briefly outline the main points.

1. The first source and cause of this union — and the root of all the other causes — lies in the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son regarding the recovery and salvation of fallen humanity. Among the effects of this covenant, the assumption of our nature — which is the foundation of this union — was planned. I have explained the nature and terms of this agreement, counsel, and compact elsewhere, and will not repeat it here. But the relationship between Christ and the church, flowing from this source and being an effect of infinite wisdom in the Father and Son's eternal counsel, to be made real by the Holy Spirit, must be distinguished from all other unions or relationships whatever.

2. The Lord Christ, with respect to the nature He was to assume, was on this basis predestined to grace and glory. He was foreordained and predestined before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) — that is, with respect to His office, and to all the grace and glory required for it and flowing from it. All the grace and glory of the human nature of Christ was the effect of free divine foreordination. God chose it from all eternity to receive in time all that it did receive. No other cause can be assigned for the glorious exaltation of that portion of our nature.

3. The grace and glory to which He was predestined was twofold. First, what was peculiar to Himself; and second, what was to be communicated through Him to the church. Of the first kind was the grace of the personal union — that singular effect of divine wisdom, for which there is no shadow or analogy in any other work of God in creation, providence, or grace — with which His human nature was filled: "full of grace and truth." All His personal glory, power, authority, and majesty as Mediator — expressed in His exaltation at the right hand of God — belong to this category. These things were peculiar to Him, and all of them are effects of His eternal predestination. But second, He was not predestined in this absolute sense alone; He was also predestined with respect to the grace and glory that was to be communicated to the church through Him.

1. He was predestined as the pattern and exemplary cause of our predestination. We are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29). Therefore He "will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory" (Philippians 3:21), so that when He appears we will be fully like Him (1 John 3:2).

2. He was predestined as the means and cause of communicating all grace and glory to us. We were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy, and predestined to adoption as children through Him (Ephesians 1:3-5). He was appointed as the sole procuring cause of all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places for those chosen in Him.

3. He was foreordained as the head of the church, for it was God's design to sum up all things in Him (Ephesians 1:10).

4. All God's elect were, in His eternal purpose, and in the everlasting covenant between the Father and the Son, entrusted to Christ to be delivered from sin, the law, and death, and to be brought into the enjoyment of God. "They were Yours, and You gave them to Me" (John 17:6). From this flows the love with which He loved them and gave Himself for them — a love that existed before any goodness or love in them (Ephesians 5:25-26; Galatians 2:20; Revelation 1:5-6).

5. In carrying out this divine design and fulfilling the everlasting covenant, Christ took on our nature in the fullness of time — He took it into personal union with Himself. The special relationship that resulted between Him and the elect children is explained at length by the apostle in Hebrews 2:10-17. I refer the reader to our exposition of that passage.

6. On these foundations He undertook to be the surety of the new covenant: "Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant" (Hebrews 7:22). Of all the foundational considerations of the imputation of our sins to Christ, this is the one I will focus on here — specifically to address and correct some misunderstandings about the nature of His suretyship and its relationship to the covenant of which He was the surety. What I offer on this point is drawn, with very little change, from my exposition of this passage in the seventh chapter of Hebrews — not yet published — written without any anticipation of discussing our present subject.

The Greek word for surety (enguos) appears nowhere else in Scripture but this single place. But the objection some would draw from this — that since Christ is called a surety in only one place, it carries little weight — is both unreasonable and absurd. First, this one passage is divine revelation, and therefore carries the same authority as twenty testimonies to the same effect. One divine testimony makes our faith no less obligatory, and no less secure from error, than a hundred would.

2. The meaning of the word is well established from its use in everyday life — no question can be raised about its sense and significance simply because it appears only once. The term itself removes the difficulty and ambiguity whenever it is encountered. Third, the thing itself that the term describes is so fully explained by the apostle in this passage, and so abundantly taught in other parts of Scripture, that the single use of this one word can only add clarity, not undermine it.

Something should be said about the meaning of the word, as this will shed light on what it signifies. The root word (engyos) comes from "the palm of the hand" — and from this comes the act of delivering something into another's hand. Being a surety was therefore expressed by striking hands (Proverbs 6:1): "My son, if you have become surety for your neighbor, if you have given a pledge for a stranger." This corresponds to the Hebrew term that the Septuagint renders in Proverbs 6:1; 17:18; 20:19; and by Nehemiah in Nehemiah 5:3. The original sense is "to mingle" or "a mixing together of things or persons." From this — because of the joining and intermingling between a surety and the one he stands for, by which they become, in a sense, one person for the purposes of the suretyship — the word came to mean a surety or to give surety. The one who became a surety was bound to answer for whatever befell the person he stood for. This is illustrated in Genesis 43:9 in the words of Judah to his father Jacob about Benjamin: "I will be a guarantee for him; from my hand you may require him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame before you forever." In undertaking to be surety for Benjamin's safety, Judah bound himself to answer for whatever might happen to him. On this basis he later appealed to Joseph to be taken as a servant in Benjamin's place so that Benjamin could go free and return to his father (Genesis 44:32-33). What is required of such a surety is that he bear and answer for everything the person he stands for is liable to — whether criminal or civil — as far as the suretyship extends. A surety is one who undertakes for another, and is therefore justly and legally bound to answer for whatever is owed by or to that person. The word is used in no other sense (see Job 17:3; Proverbs 6:1; 11:15; 17:11; 20:16; 27:13). Paul became a surety to Philemon for Onesimus in this exact sense (verse 17). The Greek term used here (eggyos) carries the sense of a pledge, a guarantee, an undertaking for a person or matter — from which an agreement follows. In some cases this took the form of pledges or an earnest payment (Isaiah 36:8): "Give surety, pledges, hostages for the true performance of the conditions." The same root is behind the word translated "pledge" or "earnest" in Ephesians 1:14. Therefore, a surety is one who voluntarily takes upon himself the cause or condition of another — to answer, bear, or pay what that person is liable for, or to ensure that it is done — and thereby becomes justly and legally bound to perform it. This is the sense in which the apostle uses the word here, for it has no other.

In examining the nature of Christ's suretyship, the whole matter comes down to this one question: was the Lord Christ made a surety only on God's side toward us — assuring us that the promises of the covenant on God's part would be fulfilled — or was He also, and primarily, an undertaker on our side, responsible for what is required with respect to us, so that the promise might be accomplished? The first of these is vigorously asserted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond in their annotations on this passage.

Schlichtingius writes: "Jesus is called the guarantee of the covenant because He pledged in God's name to us — that is, He assured us that God would keep the promises of the covenant. He did not pledge to God on our behalf or take on Himself the payment of our debts. For we did not send Christ — God did. It was in God's name that Christ came to us, established a covenant with us, pledged that its promises would be fulfilled, and took that responsibility upon Himself. Therefore He is not called simply a surety, but the surety of the covenant. And Christ guaranteed the truth of the divine covenant not only by continually testifying in words that it was firm and certain, but also by confirming the credibility of His mission through the greatest possible evidence: through a perfectly blameless and holy life, through the clearly divine works He performed, and through the endurance of the brutal death He underwent for the truth of His teaching." He follows this with a lengthy discussion of the evidences we have of Christ's trustworthiness. This gives us a concise summary of the Socinian view of the mediation of Christ. Grotius writes: "Christ guaranteed — that is, He assured us of the promise — not merely by words, but by a life of constant holiness, by the death He endured for it, and by many miracles," which is a condensed version of Schlichtingius. Dr. Hammond explains it to the same effect: that Christ was a sponsor or surety on God's part, to confirm the promises of the covenant.

On the other hand, the great majority of expositors — ancient and modern, from both the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions — affirm that the Lord Christ, as surety of the covenant, was properly a surety and undertaker to God for us, not a surety and undertaker to us for God. Because this is a matter of great importance, deeply affecting the faith and consolation of the church, I will dwell on it a little.

First, consider the argument offered to prove that Christ was only a surety from God to us. This argument is drawn neither from the name or nature of the office and work of a surety, nor from the nature of the covenant of which He was surety, nor from the nature of the office He held. The only argument put forward is this: that we do not give Christ as surety to God — God gives Him to us. Therefore, they say, He is a surety for God and the fulfillment of His promises, not for us in paying our debts or answering what is required of us.

But this argument has no force. It is not relevant to the nature of a surety who may design or appoint him to that office and work. All that is required is the surety's own voluntary acceptance of the office and its responsibilities, however he may come to take it on. Whoever willingly and voluntarily undertakes for another — on whatever grounds or for whatever reasons — is that person's surety. This is precisely what the Lord Christ did on behalf of the church. When it was plain that sacrifices, burnt offerings, and sin offerings were not what God would have or accept as sufficient to make the atonement He required — so that the covenant could be established and made effective for us — Christ said: "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God" (Hebrews 10:5-6). He willingly and voluntarily, out of His own abundant goodness and love, took upon Himself the work of making atonement for us — and in doing so He was our surety. This undertaking is accordingly attributed to the love He exercised in it (Galatians 2:20; 1 John 3:16; Revelation 1:5). There is also this: He took on our nature — the seed of Abraham — in which He was our surety. So although we neither did nor could appoint Him to this work, He took from us that in which and by which He was our surety — which amounts to the same thing as if we had designated Him to it, as far as the true basis of His being our surety is concerned. Therefore, despite the eternal transactions between the Father and the Son in this matter, it was His voluntary commitment to be our surety and His taking of our nature for that purpose that was the formal basis of His being established in that office.

It is weak and contrary to all common experience to say that no one can be a surety for others unless those others designate and appoint him as such. The most significant examples of suretyship in the world have been cases of voluntary undertaking by those who were not sought out or hired by the persons they stood for. In such undertakings, the one to whom the pledge is made is no less in view than the one for whom it is made. When Judah voluntarily became a surety for Benjamin, he had as much regard for satisfying his father as for his brother's safety. Similarly, when the Lord Christ undertook to be surety for us, He had regard for the glory of God before our safety.

1. Consider the arguments that demonstrate He neither was nor could have been a surety to us for God, but was rather a surety for us to God.

1. A surety is one who undertakes for another where that other is deficient — in reality or in reputation. Whatever form that undertaking takes — words of promise, depositing real security with an arbitrator, or any other personal pledge of life and body — it addresses the deficiency of the person being represented. Such a person is called a sponsor or guarantor in all standard usage and common speech. If a person's own credit and reputation are beyond question, there is no need for a surety — unless the matter involves mortality. The words of a surety on behalf of someone whose ability or reputation is in doubt are: "I take this on myself; he will perform, or I will." When the related word is used as an adjective, it means "liable to pay on behalf of others who cannot pay."

2. God therefore can have no surety in any proper sense, because no deficiency on His part is conceivable. There may indeed be a question whether some particular word or promise is a word or promise of God. To assure us of this is not the work of a surety but of a witness — someone who gives evidence that this is indeed the case. But once it is granted that something is God's word or promise, there is no conceivable fear of any deficiency on His part in fulfilling it, and therefore no need of a surety for its performance. God does make use of witnesses to confirm His word — to testify that He has made such promises and that He will fulfill them. The Lord Christ served as God's witness in this sense: "You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 43:10). But not all His witnesses were His sureties. Christ Himself declared that He came into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37) — that is, to the truth of God's promises, for He was a servant of the circumcision for the sake of the truth of God's promises to the fathers (Romans 15:8). But a surety for God, properly so called, He was not and could not be. The difference between a witness and a surety is wide enough. A surety must have greater ability, credit, or reputation than the one he stands for — otherwise there is no point to his suretyship — or at least he must add to that person's credit and make it stronger than it would be without him. No one can do this for God — not even the Lord Christ Himself, who in His entire work was the Father's servant. The apostle does not use this word in some broad, improper sense for anyone who in any way gives assurance about something, for in that sense he would have attributed nothing distinctive to Christ. All the prophets and apostles would then have been sureties for God, and many of them confirmed the truth of His word and promises with their very lives. But the kind of surety the apostle has in mind is one who undertakes to do for others what they cannot do for themselves — or at least what they are not considered capable of doing.

3. The apostle had already explained at length who and what was God's own guarantee in this matter of the covenant, and how impossible it was for Him to have any other. This guarantee was God Himself alone, interposing by His own oath. In this matter, because there was no one greater by whom He could swear, He swore by Himself (Hebrews 6:13-14). So if God were to give any surety beyond Himself, it would have to be someone greater than He — which is entirely impossible. Therefore He swears by Himself alone. He may and does use many means to declare and confirm His truth to us, so that we may know and believe it to be His word — and the Lord Christ in His ministry was the chief witness to the truth of God. But no surety other than Himself is possible. And therefore,

4. When God would have us reach not only full assurance of faith concerning His promises but also strong consolation in them, He grounds it entirely in the immutability of His counsel, as declared by His promise and oath (Hebrews 6:18-19). God is therefore incapable of having a proper surety, and we do not need one on His part to bring our faith to its highest level of assurance.

5. We, on the other hand, stand in need of a surety for us and on our behalf in every respect. Without the intervention of such a surety, no covenant between God and us could be firm and stable — could never be an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure. In the first covenant made with Adam there was no surety; God and humanity were the immediate parties. And although we were then in a condition fully capable of performing all the terms of the covenant, it was broken and annulled. If this happened through a failure on God's part, then on making a new covenant He would need a surety to answer for Him so that the new covenant could be stable and everlasting. But this is false and blasphemous to imagine. It was humanity alone who failed and broke that covenant. Therefore, when the new covenant was established — with the explicit design that it should never be annulled as the first was — a surety and undertaker for us was necessary. For if the first covenant could not remain firm and stable because there was no surety to answer for us, despite the full ability we then had to meet its terms, how much less could any covenant be stable now that our natures are corrupted and sinful? We alone were therefore capable of needing a proper surety, we alone needed one, and without one the covenant could not be firm and inviolable on our side. The surety of this covenant is therefore one who stands with God on our behalf.

6. It is the priesthood of Christ that the apostle is discussing in this passage — and only that. Therefore Christ is a surety as He is a priest and in the exercise of that office, and is therefore surety with God on our behalf. Schlichtingius notices this and sees the problem it creates for his position, which he tries to address. He writes: "Someone might find it surprising that the divine author, having discussed Christ's priesthood both before and after this verse, would suddenly call Him the guarantee of the covenant rather than the priest. Why did he not say 'Jesus has become the priest of a better covenant'? For the whole flow of the argument seems to require that. It is plausible that the priesthood of Christ is also included in the word 'guarantee.' For it is not the role of a surety merely to make a promise in another's name and to pledge his word on their behalf, but also — if the situation demands it — to fulfill what he has pledged in another's name. In human affairs, the surety must perform when the one he guaranteed fails to do so. In this case, however, for the opposite reason — since the former situation cannot apply here — namely, insofar as the one for whom Christ pledged delivers His promises to us through Christ Himself: and in this, the priesthood of Christ is primarily expressed."

In answer to Schlichtingius: First, it may indeed seem strange to someone who understands Christ's suretyship the way he does, why the apostle would use this term and introduce it in his description of Christ's priestly office as something belonging to it. But grant what the proper work and duty of a surety actually is, and acknowledge who the Lord Jesus was a surety for, and it becomes clear that nothing more fitting or relevant could have been said when he was describing that office. Second, Schlichtingius himself acknowledges that his interpretation of Christ's suretyship — making Christ a surety for God — contradicts the ordinary meaning of the word surety among people. He grants that such a surety acts only where there is a deficiency or inability in the one he represents — undertaking to pay what they owe and to do what they cannot do. If this is not what the word means here, then the apostle has used a word found nowhere else in all of Scripture to teach something it never means in ordinary usage — which is improbable and absurd. The very reason the apostle used this word was so that from its common meaning in other contexts we could understand what he intends by it and what he is attributing to the Lord Jesus under this title. Third, Schlichtingius has no way to resolve the apostle's use of "surety" in his description of Christ's priestly office except by destroying the nature of that office as well. To support his strange notion that Christ as a priest was a surety for God, he would have us believe that the priesthood of Christ consists in making God's promises effective to us — in effectively communicating the promised blessings to us. The error of this idea, which actually destroys the priesthood of Christ, I have exposed and refuted at length elsewhere. Therefore, since the Lord Christ is surety of the covenant as a priest, and since all priestly acts of Christ have God as their immediate object and are performed with God on our behalf, He was a surety for us.

The Lord Christ was a surety, guarantor, and pledger for us — by His voluntary undertaking, out of His great grace and love — to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our part, so that we might enjoy the benefits of the covenant: the grace and glory prepared, offered, and promised in it, in the manner determined by divine wisdom. This may be reduced to two heads. First, His answering for our transgressions against the first covenant. Second, His purchase and procurement of the grace of the new covenant. He was made a curse for us, so that the blessing of Abraham might come upon us (Galatians 3:13-15).

1. As surety of the covenant, He undertook to answer for all the sins of those who are to be, and are, made partakers of its benefits. This meant bearing the punishment due to their sins — making atonement for them by offering Himself as a propitiatory sacrifice for the expiation of their sins, and redeeming them by the price of His blood from their state of misery and bondage under the law and its curse (Isaiah 53:4-6, 10; Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 10:5-8; Romans 8:2-3; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; Galatians 3:13). This was absolutely necessary for the grace and glory prepared in the covenant to be communicated to us. Without this undertaking and its fulfillment, the righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit sinners — those who had turned away from Him, despised His authority, and rebelled against Him, and had thereby fallen under the sentence and curse of the law — to be received again into His favor and made partakers of grace and glory. This, therefore, is what the Lord Christ took upon Himself as the surety of the covenant.

2. He also undertook that those who were to be brought into this covenant would receive grace enabling them to meet its terms, fulfill its conditions, and yield the obedience God requires. By God's appointment, He procured — and by merit and design did procure — for them the Holy Spirit, and all the necessary supplies of grace to make them new creatures, enabling them to yield obedience to God from a new principle of spiritual life, and to continue faithfully in that obedience to the end. In this way He was the surety of this better covenant. All the details of this will be handled fully in the exposition of this passage from which, as I said, these points are drawn, in what will be appropriate for that occasion.

But some hold a different view of these things. They say that Christ, by His death and the obedience He rendered in it — by which He offered Himself as a sacrifice of sweet-smelling aroma to God — procured for us the new covenant. As one writer puts it, all that we have from the death of Christ is that we owe the covenant of grace to it. In their view, Christ did and suffered what God freely appointed Him to do and suffer. God's justice did not require this with respect to the sins of those for whom He died and in whose place He suffered; it was simply what divine wisdom and sovereignty freely ordained for Him. On this basis, God was pleased to set aside the terms of the old covenant and enter into a new covenant with humanity on terms suited to our reason, possible for our abilities, and fully advantageous to us. These terms are faith and sincere obedience — an assent to divine revelation that is effective in producing obedience to God's will, motivated by the promises of eternal life and future reward held out in it. On the fulfillment of these conditions, our justification, adoption, and future glory depend — for they constitute that righteousness before God on the basis of which He pardons our sins and accepts our persons as though we were perfectly righteous. By Christ's procuring the new covenant for us — which is what they attribute to His death — they mean the abolition of the old covenant or the law, or at least such a modification of it that it no longer obligates us to sinless obedience or to punishment, and no longer requires a perfect righteousness for our justification before God. In its place stands a new law of obedience adapted to our present state and condition, upon whose observance all the promises of the gospel depend.

Others say that in the death of Christ there was real satisfaction made to God — not to the law, or to God according to what the law required, but to God absolutely. That is, He did what God was well pleased and satisfied with, without reference to His justice or the curse of the law. They add that on this basis the whole righteousness of Christ is imputed to us to the extent that we are made partakers of its benefits. Furthermore, the way those benefits are communicated to us is through the new covenant that Christ procured by His death. For the conditions of this covenant are established within the covenant itself — faith and obedience — and God will bestow all the benefits and effects of the covenant upon us when those conditions are met. Therefore, what Christ has done for us is accepted as our legal righteousness to this extent: that God, upon our faith and obedience in response to it, releases and pardons all our sins of omission and commission. Upon this pardon, no additional positive perfect righteousness is needed for our justification or salvation; our own personal righteousness is accepted by God in its place, by virtue of the new covenant that Christ procured. This is the position as stated by Curcellaeus and those who follow him.

Several things in these views deserve examination, and most, if not all, of them will come up as we continue. The one point that directly concerns us here — in light of what we have said about Christ as surety of the covenant, and which is the foundation of everything asserted in these views — is this: that Christ by His death procured the new covenant for us. As one writer says, this is all that we receive from His death — which, if proven false, leaves us with nothing from it at all. These matters must be examined.

1. The language of "procuring the new covenant" is ambiguous. As far as I know, no one has yet explained how the Lord Christ procured it — whether He did so by His satisfaction and obedience as the meritorious cause, or by some other kind of causality. Until this is settled, we have no idea what relationship between the new covenant and Christ's death is actually intended. To say that we owe the new covenant to His death does not clarify matters but only makes the terms more ambiguous. Nor is it made clear whether the establishing of the covenant, or the communication of its benefits, is what is meant. The general statement that God was so pleased with what Christ did that He therefore made and entered into a new covenant with humanity is equally vague. Those who deny the whole satisfaction and merit of Christ could accept that formulation. If they mean that the Lord Christ by His obedience and suffering meritoriously procured the making and establishing of the new covenant — and that this was the whole effect of His death — the claim can be understood, but it destroys the entire nature of Christ's mediation.

2. This view faces a serious problem: in a matter so fundamental to our religion, and so closely related to the eternal welfare of the church, it is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Is it not remarkable that if this is, as some say, the sole effect of Christ's death — while many other things are frequently attributed to it in Scripture as its effects and fruits — this supposed sole effect is nowhere mentioned, neither in plain words nor in any language that admits of this meaning by any fair inference? Our redemption, the pardon of sins, the renewal of our natures, our sanctification, justification, peace with God, eternal life — all of these are assigned to the death of Christ, jointly and individually, in places almost too numerous to count. But Scripture nowhere says that Christ by His death merited, procured, or obtained the new covenant, or that God should enter into a new covenant with humanity. Indeed, as we shall see, what is frequently asserted in Scripture is contrary to and inconsistent with this claim.

3. To clarify the truth on this matter, we must consider the various aspects and causes of the new covenant, and the true relationship of Christ's death to each of them. The covenant is presented to us in several distinct ways.

1. The new covenant appears as the design and preparation of its terms and benefits in the counsel of God. Although this has the character of an eternal decree, it is not the same as the decree of election, as some suppose. The decree of election properly concerns the subjects and persons for whom grace and glory are prepared. This counsel concerns the preparation of that grace and glory with respect to the way and manner of their communication. Some learned men think that this counsel and purpose of God's will — to give grace and glory in and through Jesus Christ to the elect, by the means He prepared — is formally the covenant of grace, or at least contains its substance. But it is certain that more is required to complete the full nature of a covenant. Nor is this purpose or counsel of God called the covenant in Scripture; it is presented only as the spring and source of it (Ephesians 1:4-11). To complete the nature of the covenant of grace, the declaration of this counsel of God's will is required, accompanied by the means and powers for its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways by which we are to be drawn into it and made partakers of its benefits. But when inquiring into the procuring cause of the new covenant, this is the first consideration. For nothing can be the procuring cause of the covenant that is not also the procuring cause of this spring and source of it — this design in the mind of God, this preparation of its terms and benefits. But Scripture nowhere attributes this to the death or mediation of Christ, and to ascribe it to them would overthrow the entire freedom of eternal grace and love. Nothing that is absolutely eternal, as this decree and counsel of God is, can be the effect of or procured by anything external and temporal.

2. The new covenant may be considered with respect to the covenant transactions between the Father and the Son concerning the fulfillment of God's eternal counsel. What these transactions were and what they consisted in, I have explained at length elsewhere (Exercitations, Vol. 2). I do not call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in Scripture. Some refuse to distinguish between the covenant of the Mediator and the covenant of grace, on the grounds that the promises of the covenant absolutely are said to have been made to Christ (Galatians 3:16), and He is the primary recipient of all its grace. But in the covenant of the Mediator, Christ stands alone for Himself and undertakes for Himself alone — not as the representative of the church. In the covenant of grace, by contrast, He stands as the representative of the church. The covenant of the Mediator is the arrangement by which the covenant of grace received its designed establishment — with all the ways, means, and ends of its fulfillment ordered so that it would accomplish the eternal glory of God's wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power. Therefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause other than what was the cause of the covenant of the Mediator — the agreement between God the Father and the Son as He undertook the work of mediation. As this is nowhere attributed to the death of Christ in Scripture, to assert it would also be contrary to all spiritual reason. Who can conceive that Christ by His death procured the agreement between God and Himself that He should die?

3. The covenant may be considered with respect to its declaration by special revelation. We may call this God's making or establishing it, if we like — though in Scripture, the making of a covenant refers primarily, if not exclusively, to its execution or actual application to persons (2 Samuel 23:5; Jeremiah 32:40). This declaration of God's grace, and the provision made in the covenant of the Mediator for rendering it effective to God's glory, is most commonly called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold.

1. First, as an unconditional and absolute promise — this was how it was first declared and established with Adam, and afterward with Abraham. The promise is the declaration of God's previously mentioned purpose — the free determination and counsel of His will regarding how He would deal with sinners after the fall and their forfeiture of their first covenant standing. The grace and will of God was the only cause of this (Hebrews 8:8). The death of Christ could not be the means of procuring it, since Christ Himself, and all that He was to do for us, was the very substance of that promise. This promise — as it declares the purpose and counsel of God's will for the communication of grace and glory to sinners, in and through the mediation of Christ, according to the ways and terms prepared in His sovereign wisdom and pleasure — is formally the new covenant, though something further remains to be added for its application to us. Now the substance of the first promise — in which the whole covenant of grace was virtually contained and directly expressed — was the giving of Christ for the recovery of humanity from sin and misery by His death (Genesis 3:15). Therefore, if Christ Himself and all the benefits of His mediation — His death and all its effects — are contained within the promise of the covenant, that is, within the covenant itself, then His death was not the procuring cause of that covenant, and we do not owe the covenant to it.

2. Second, the covenant may be considered as the added prescription of the way and means by which God wills that we shall enter into a covenant relationship with Him and share in its benefits. This is virtually included in the absolute promise itself — for every promise of God tacitly requires faith and obedience on our part — and it is expressed in other passages as the condition required of us. This is not the covenant itself, but the constitution of the terms on our part by which we are made partakers of it. Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of Christ's death or procured by it. It is a pure act of God's sovereign grace and wisdom. The actual things bestowed on us, communicated to us, and worked in us by grace are all effects of Christ's death. But the appointment of those things as the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act of pure sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to die — not in order that faith and repentance might become the means of salvation, but so that all His elect might believe, and that all who believe might not perish but have eternal life. Yet it is acknowledged that the constitution of these covenant terms does relate to the covenant transaction between the Father and the Son, in which they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God's grace. So although the constitution of those terms was not procured by Christ's death, it would not have been established apart from reference to it. Therefore, the sole cause of God's making the new covenant was the same as the cause of giving Christ Himself to be our Mediator: the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as Scripture everywhere expresses.

Fourth, the covenant may be considered as its actual application of grace, benefits, and privileges to specific persons — by which they truly become partakers of them and are taken into covenant with God. This alone is what Scripture means by God making a covenant with someone. It is not a general revelation or declaration of the terms and nature of the covenant — which some call a universal conditional covenant, on what grounds best known to themselves, since the very formal nature of making a covenant with someone includes their actual acceptance of it and participation in its benefits. Rather, God's making His covenant with someone means communicating the grace of it, accompanied by a prescription of obedience — as every scriptural instance of it demonstrates.

The question may therefore be asked: what relationship does the covenant of grace have to the death of Christ, or what bearing does His death have on it?

I answer: building on what has been said about His suretyship, the covenant of grace stands in a threefold relationship to His death.

1. The covenant — as the grace and glory of it were prepared in God's counsel, as its terms were fixed in the covenant of the Mediator, and as it was declared in the promise — was confirmed, ratified, and made irrevocable by Christ's death. The apostle dwells on this at length in Hebrews 9:15-20. He compares Christ's blood in His death and self-offering to the sacrifices and their blood by which the old covenant was confirmed, purified, dedicated, and established (verses 18-19). Now those sacrifices did not procure the old covenant or persuade God to enter into it — they only ratified and confirmed it. In the same way, the new covenant was confirmed and ratified by the blood of Christ.

2. By His death Christ underwent and accomplished everything that God's righteousness and wisdom required, so that the effects, fruits, benefits, and grace intended, designed, and prepared in the new covenant could be effectively fulfilled and communicated to sinners. Therefore, although He did not procure the covenant itself for us by His death, He was — in His person, mediation, life, and death — the only cause and means by which the whole grace of the covenant is made effective for us.

3. All the benefits of the covenant were procured by Him. That is: all the grace, mercy, privileges, and glory that God prepared in the counsel of His will, fixed as to their manner of communication in the covenant of the Mediator, and offered in its promises — all of these were purchased, merited, and procured by His death. They are also effectively communicated and applied to all the covenant people by virtue of His death and His other mediatorial acts. This is a far more significant procurement of the new covenant than what is claimed about procuring its terms and conditions. For if He had procured nothing more than this — if all we owe to His mediation is that God would grant and establish the rule and promise that whoever believes shall be saved — it would have been possible that no one would be saved by it. Indeed, given our actual state and condition, it would have been impossible that anyone was saved that way.

To sum up: the question is which of these aspects of the new covenant is meant when it is said that Christ procured it by His death. If it means the actual communication of all the grace and glory prepared in the covenant and offered to us in its promises — that is absolutely true. All the grace and glory promised in the covenant was purchased for the church by Jesus Christ. In this sense, He did procure the new covenant by His death. The whole of Scripture, from the first promise to the end, bears witness to this. For it is in Him alone that God blesses us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. Let all the good things mentioned or promised in the covenant — whether explicitly or by sound inference — be enumerated, and it will not be difficult to show, of every one of them jointly and individually, that they were all procured for us by the obedience and death of Christ.

But this is not what is intended by those who hold this view. Most of them actually deny that the grace of the covenant in conversion, the remission of sins, sanctification, justification, adoption, and the like are effects or procurements of Christ's death. What they intend instead is God's making of the covenant — that is, the devising of its terms and conditions, together with their proposal to humanity for recovery. But this view fails, for the following reasons.

1. The Lord Christ Himself, and the whole work of His mediation as God's ordained means for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners, is the first and principal promise of the covenant. His coming in the flesh, His mediatorial work, and our deliverance through it were the subject of that first promise — which virtually contained the whole covenant. He was also the subject of the renewal of the covenant to Abraham when it was solemnly confirmed by God's oath (Galatians 3:16-17). And Christ did not by His death procure the promise of His death, or of His coming into the flesh, or of His coming into the world to die.

2. The making of this covenant is attributed throughout Scripture — as is also the sending of Christ to die — to the love, grace, and wisdom of God alone. It is never attributed to the death of Christ, as the actual communication of all grace and glory is. Let all the passages be examined where the giving of the promise, the sending of Christ, or the making of the covenant are mentioned — either explicitly or implicitly — and in none of them are these things assigned to any cause other than the grace, love, and wisdom of God alone, all to be made effective for us through the mediation of Christ.

Third: attributing the sole purpose of Christ's death to procuring the new covenant — in the sense some contend for — actually empties both Christ's death and the covenant itself of all their power. The covenant they describe is nothing more than the establishment and offer of new terms and conditions for life and salvation to all people. But since accepting and fulfilling those conditions depends on human will, with no guarantee of effectual grace, it was possible that despite everything Christ accomplished through His death, not a single sinner might be saved — and God's entire purpose in it might come to nothing. Furthermore, the supposed advantage of these new conditions is that God will now accept, for Christ's sake, an obedience inferior to what the law required — so that Christ's grace does not raise everything up into conformity with God's holiness and will, but instead adjusts everything down to our present condition. Nothing could be more dishonoring to Christ and the gospel than this. What does it amount to except making Christ the agent of sin by annulling the holiness that the law demands, without providing anything to take its place — except something incomparably less worthy? It is also inconsistent with God's wisdom, goodness, and unchanging nature to give mankind a law of obedience, place them all under its severe penalty for transgressing it, and then turn around and give them a law whose requirements can coexist with many failures and sins — when He could have done that from the beginning. For if God can do that now, He could have done so before — and how far that reflects on the glory of the divine attributes is not hard to show. Nor does this empty notion agree with the scriptural testimonies that the Lord Christ came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, that He is the end of the law, and that faith does not nullify the law but establishes it.

Finally, the Lord Christ was the Mediator and Surety of the new covenant, through whom it was ratified, confirmed, and established. Therefore He did not procure its constitution — for all the acts of His office belong to that mediation, and it is difficult to understand how acts of mediation for establishing the covenant and making it effective could at the same time be what procured it.

But to return from this digression: all the preceding grounds of the union between Christ and believers — by which they become one mystical person and which form the complete foundation for the imputation of their sins to Him and His righteousness to them — come together and are made complete in the communication of His Spirit. The same Spirit that dwells in Christ is given to believers, to dwell in them, animate them, and guide the whole mystical body and all its members. This subject has been treated so extensively in recent times that I will do no more than mention it here.

On the basis of these considerations — by which the Lord Christ became one mystical person with the church, or bore the person of the church in what He did as Mediator — through the holy and wise arrangement of God as the author of the law, the supreme Ruler and Governor of all mankind in their temporal and eternal concerns, and by Christ's own consent, the sins of all the elect were imputed to Him. This has been the faith and language of the church in every age, derived from and grounded in the plain testimony of Scripture, along with all the promises and foreshadowings of His coming in the flesh from the very beginning. It therefore cannot now be openly denied without embarrassment. The Socinians themselves grant that our sins may be said to be imputed to Christ and that He underwent their punishment in the sense that everything evil and painful that happened to Him in this life, including the death He died, was occasioned by our sins. For if we had not sinned, there would have been no need and no occasion for His suffering. Yet despite this concession, they explicitly deny His satisfaction — that is, that He properly underwent the punishment due to our sins — and in doing so they deny all real imputation of our sins to Him. Others say our sins were imputed to Him as to liability for punishment (quoad reatum poenae), but not as to liability for the fault itself (quoad reatum culpae). I must confess that to me this distinction is nothing but empty sound without meaning. Feuardentius presses this distinction at length (Dialog. 5, p. 467) and others have followed him. His point is that the Lord Christ did not present Himself before the throne of God bearing our sins so as to answer for them to God's justice. Now guilt (reatus) may mean either the worthiness of punishment or the obligation to punishment, as Bellarmine distinguishes (de Amiss. Grat. lib. 7, cap. 7) — and with respect to Christ, they will only allow the latter. Their main argument is this: if our sins were imputed to Christ as to the guilt of the fault, as they put it, then He would be polluted by them and rightly called a sinner in every sense. This would be true if sin could be transferred to Christ by infusion so as to become inherently and subjectively His. But their being imputed to Him in no way supports that conclusion. In any case, there is such a thing as legal uncleanness where there is no inherent moral defilement — as when the priest who offered the red heifer for atonement, and the one who burned her, were said to be unclean (Numbers 19:7-8). Yet on that basis they say Christ died and suffered by the special command of God — not because His death and suffering were in any way due on account of our sins or required by justice. This is simply to overthrow the satisfaction of Christ.

The purpose of this distinction, then, is to deny the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Christ — and I cannot understand in what tolerable sense our sins could be said to be imputed to Him at all on such a view. But we are not bound by arbitrary distinctions or by whatever meaning someone chooses to impose on their terms. I will therefore first examine the meaning of the words "guilt" and "guilty," so that we can judge what this distinction actually intends.

The Hebrew language has no separate word for guilt or guilty — the same word is used for sin, the guilt of it, the punishment due to it, and a sacrifice offered for it. When speaking of the guilt of bloodshed, Hebrew writers do not use a word meaning guilt — they simply say that the blood is "on him." So David prays, "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness" (Psalm 51:14) — meaning his liability for the punishment attached by God's law to the shedding of blood. The Hebrew word for guilt (ascham) appears nowhere in the Old Testament simply to mean guilt in an abstract sense; it always signifies the relationship of a sin to its punishment. Other meanings will be sought in vain.

In the New Testament, the guilty person is described as liable to judgment or punishment for sin (Romans 3:19) — the one on whom "vengeance will not allow to go unpunished" (Acts 28:4). A similar term appears in 1 Corinthians 11:27 with the same meaning. Once the idea is expressed as owing or being indebted to justice (Matthew 23:18). In summary: to be guilty is to be exposed and liable to God's justice, punishment, and vengeance for sin — He being the supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all.

In Latin, reus (guilty) has a broad range of meaning. One is called reus who is exposed to a charge (crimini obnoxius), or to punishment for a crime (poenae propter crimen), or who owes a vow, a promise, or an obligation from a pledge. In law, every surety is called reus. The legal principle runs: "When a slave has made an agreement to purchase his freedom and has provided a surety for it, even if the slave is freed by someone else, the surety remains bound." Anyone who binds himself on behalf of another, as to the substance of that obligation, is called reus. The same usage appears in the best Latin authors. Livy writes (de Bello Punic., lib. 5): "Strategic positions should be assigned to commanders, each being reus — answerable — for the defense of his portion; so that if anything went wrong, it would be charged to him." The same author writes again that those who were connected to a king by kinship or marriage were put to death as reus of another's fault — guilty by imputation and made to suffer for it. So in Latin usage, one is reus who is answerable to punishment or payment, either for himself or for another.

Reatus is a word of later origin in Latin, formed from reus, as Quintilian notes in his discussion of obsolete and new words (lib. 8, cap. 3): "What are now old words were once new; some are quite recent in use." He reports that Messalla was the first to use reatus, and Augustus the first to use munerarius, along with piratica, musica, and several other words then newly in use. But reatus at its original invention did not carry the meaning now commonly attached to it. I mention this only to show that we have no reason to be bound by people's arbitrary use of words. Some lawyers later used it to mean a crime — a fault that exposes one to punishment. But its original and long-established meaning was to describe the outward state and condition of a person who had been formally charged in a criminal case, before he was either acquitted or condemned. Among the Romans, those made rei by a public accusation adopted a humble, disheveled appearance — mourning clothes, a sorrowful face, hair and beard left unkempt — to move the people who would judge their case to compassion. Milo actually contributed to his own sentence of exile by refusing to submit to this custom, which he felt displayed a cowardly and base spirit. This state of grief and distress, so outwardly expressed, was what they called reatus — nothing more. Later, when popular government gave way to imperial rule, the word came to describe the condition of those held in custody awaiting trial — since public displays of mourning had lost their purpose. If this word has any useful application to our present argument, it is to describe the state of people after conviction of sin and before their justification. That is their reatus — the condition in which even the proudest person cannot avoid showing inward sorrow and anxiety through outward signs. Beyond this we are not bound by the word's usage, but must consider the thing itself that we now intend to express by it.

In Scripture, guilt is the relationship of sin to the sanction of the law — the relationship by which the sinner becomes liable to punishment. To be guilty is to be exposed and answerable to punishment for sin, from God as the supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all. Guilt (reatus) is therefore rightly defined as the obligation to punishment on account of a fault — whether that fault is personally committed or imputed, justly or unjustly. So when Bathsheba told David that she and her son Solomon would be considered sinners — that is, treated as guilty and liable to punishment for some charge laid against them (1 Kings 1:21) — this captures the meaning exactly. The distinction between worthiness of punishment and obligation to punishment is really the same thing stated two ways. Both simply express the relationship of sin to the law's sanction. And if they can be distinguished at all, they are inseparable — for there can be no obligation to punishment where there is no desert of punishment.

There is even less substance in the distinction between reatus culpae (guilt of the fault) and reatus poenae (guilt of the punishment). Reatus culpae is nothing but the desert of punishment on account of the fault. Sin has other aspects — its formal nature as a transgression of the law, and the stain or defilement it brings on the soul — but its guilt is nothing other than its relation to punishment under the law's sanction. So reatus culpae and reatus poenae are actually the same thing: the guilt of sin is its desert of punishment. And where there is no reatus culpae, there can be no punishment properly speaking — for punishment is retribution owed to sin. Therefore there can be no punishment, and no reatus poenae, where there is no reatus culpae — no sin considered with its guilt. Any so-called reatus poenae that exists apart from the guilt of sin is nothing but the kind of exposure to painful consequences on the occasion of sin that the Socinians admit with respect to Christ's suffering — while simultaneously denying His satisfaction.

If this distinction is meant to describe guilt in terms of its formal relationship to sin and punishment, then both parts of the distinction must carry the same meaning — otherwise there is an equivocation in the subject. But reatus poenae is liability and exposure to punishment according to the law's sentence — the condition that makes a sinner answerable. By the same logic, reatus culpae would have to mean liability or exposure to sin itself, which is absurd. There is therefore no imputation of sin where there is no imputation of its guilt. A guilt of punishment that has no relation to the desert of sin is a pure fiction — there is no such thing in reality. There is no guilt of sin except its relation to punishment.

What we affirm, then, is this: our sins were transferred to Christ in such a way that He became answerable to God — liable in God's justice to suffer punishment for them. He was answerable for the fault of others (alienae culpae reus). Perfectly innocent in Himself, He took our guilt upon Him — our liability to punishment for sin. In this way He can rightly be called the greatest debtor in the world, even though He never borrowed or owed a single thing on His own account — because He became surety for the greatest debt of others. So Paul became a debtor to Philemon by undertaking for Onesimus, though before that Paul owed Philemon nothing.

Two things together brought about this imputation of sin to Christ. First, God's act of imputing it. Second, Christ's own voluntary act of undertaking it and accepting the charge.

First, God's act in imputing the guilt of our sins to Christ is expressed in Scripture as laying all our iniquities on Him, making Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, and similar language. As the supreme Governor, Lawgiver, and Judge of all — whose responsibility it was to ensure that His holy law was observed or its transgressors punished — God accepted, upon the transgression of that law, the sponsion and suretyship of Christ to answer for the sins of men (Hebrews 10:5-7). To this end, He placed Christ under the law — giving the law authority over Him to demand and inflict on Him the penalty due to the sins of those for whom He undertook (Galatians 3:13; 4:4-5). In order to declare the righteousness of God in setting forth Christ as a propitiation and as the one who would bear our iniquities, the guilt of our sins was transferred to Him by an act of God's righteous judgment — accepting and treating Him as the guilty party, as is done with public sureties in every case.

Second, the Lord Christ's voluntary assumption of the role of surety — His willingness to stand before the throne of God's justice on behalf of the church and answer for whatever was laid to their charge — was also required. And this He did fully and freely. His own will concurred in and consented to all those divine acts by which He and the church were constituted one mystical person. Of His own love and grace, as our surety, He stood in our place before God where God made inquisition for sin, and He took upon Himself the punishment that sin deserved. It therefore became just and right that He should suffer — the just for the unjust — that He might bring us to God. For if this is not so, I would like to know what has become of the guilt of the sins of believers. If it was not transferred to Christ, it either remains on them still, or it is simply nothing. It will be said that guilt is removed by the free pardon of sin. But if that is so, there was no need for any punishment at all — which is indeed what the Socinians argue, but which others do not accept. For if punishment is not for guilt, it is not punishment.

But it is fiercely objected that if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ, then He was made a sinner by it — for it is the guilt of sin that makes someone truly a sinner. Bellarmine presses this (lib. 2, de Justificat.) — not because it is his own real concern, but to disprove the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. He argues: if we are made righteous and children of God through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, then by the imputation of our guilt and unrighteousness to Him, He was made a sinner — and, shuddering to even think it, a child of the devil. Others press the same objection with further consequences that, for many reasons, I wish had been left unsaid. But I will answer.

First: nothing is more absolutely true, nothing more sacredly and firmly believed by us, than that nothing Christ did or suffered, nothing He undertook or endured, could or did make Him subjectively, inherently, and therefore personally a sinner or guilty of any sin of His own. To bear the guilt of another's fault — to be answerable for it (alienae culpae reus) — does not make a person a sinner, unless they undertook the role unwisely or irregularly. But that Christ should take on anything of sin in Himself is absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatic union, and would render Him unfit for all the other duties of His office (Hebrews 7:25-26). I will confess that it has always seemed deeply troubling to me that Socinus, Crellius, and Grotius grant that in some sense Christ suffered for His own sins — and then attempt to prove this from the very passage that positively denies it (Hebrews 7:27). This must be held as sacred and fixed, and not a word said nor a thought entertained about any possible alternative, on any supposition whatsoever.

Second: no one has ever imagined a transfer or propagation of sin from us to Christ like the transfer from Adam to us. Adam was a common representative for us — we are not the same for Christ. Rather, He is that for us. The imputation of our sins to Him is a singular act of divine appointment, from which no harmful consequences can follow.

Third: to imagine such an imputation of our sins to Christ that they thereby ceased to be our sins and became His absolutely is to overthrow the very thing being affirmed. On that assumption, Christ would not be suffering for our sins — because they would have ceased to be ours before He suffered. What actually happened is that their guilt was transferred to Him so that, through His suffering for it, it might be pardoned to us.

With these points established, I proceed.

First: sin involves both a transgression of the law's precept and a liability to punishment from the law's sanction. It is the first — actual transgression of the precept — that gives sin its formal character. Where that is not found subjectively in a person, no one can be formally constituted a sinner. A person may be called a sinner for some specific purpose, but without actual transgression of the precept, no one is formally a sinner — regardless of what is imputed to them. Conversely, where actual transgression is present, no non-imputation of punishment can free the person from being formally a sinner. When Bathsheba told David that she and her son Solomon would be regarded as sinners by having charges laid to their account, or when Judah told Jacob he would be a sinner before him forever if any harm came to Benjamin — meaning the fault would be charged to him — neither of them could be constituted a formal sinner by that. On the other side, when Shimei asked David not to impute sin to him — and so escaped immediate punishment — that non-imputation did not free him from being formally a sinner. Sin understood as transgression of the law's precept cannot be transferred from one person to another except through the propagation of a corrupted and depraved principle or habit. And even then, the personal sin of one person, as it inheres in him, can never become the personal sin of another. Adam by his personal sin communicated a corrupt and depraved nature to all his descendants, and beyond that, the guilt of his actual sin is imputed to them as if each one had committed it. But his particular personal sin never did and never could become the personal sin of any of them, except by the imputation of its guilt. Therefore our sins cannot be imputed to Christ in such a way that they become subjectively His, as transgressions of the law's precept. A physical transfer or infusion of sin is naturally and spiritually impossible — and yet the horrid consequences the objectors mention depend entirely on that impossible supposition. But the guilt of sin is an external relationship — a relation to the law's sanction only. This can be separated from the sin itself; if it could not be, no sinner could ever be pardoned or saved. Guilt can therefore be made another's by imputation without rendering that other person formally a sinner. This is what was imputed to Christ, and by it He became liable to the curse of the law. For the law can pronounce no one accursed except the guilty — nor would it (Deuteronomy 27:26).

Second: there is an important difference between the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us and the imputation of our sins to Christ — so that He cannot be said to be made a sinner by the latter in the same way we are made righteous by the former. Our sin was imputed to Christ only temporarily, in His role as our surety, for the specific purpose of taking it away, destroying and abolishing it. It was never imputed to Him in a way that changed His personal state and condition absolutely. But His righteousness is imputed to us to remain with us always — to be ours permanently and to bring about a total change in our state and condition in relation to God. Our sin was imputed to Him only for a time, not absolutely but in His capacity as surety, and for the specific end of destroying it — and was taken on Him on the condition that His righteousness would be made ours forever. Everything is different with the imputation of His righteousness to us: it applies to us absolutely and not under a temporary capacity, abides with us forever, transforms our state and relationship to God, and is the fruit of superabounding grace.

But it will be objected: if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ, then God must have hated Christ — since He hates the guilty. I am not entirely sure why I bother mentioning things like this, which I regard as mere quibbles of the sort that people can multiply at will against any part of the gospel's mysteries. But since the objection has been raised, I will address it.

First: it is certain that the Lord Christ's taking on Himself the guilt of our sins was an act of the highest obedience to God (Hebrews 10:5-6), and it was precisely for this that the Father loved Him (John 10:17-18). There was therefore no reason why God should hate Christ for taking on our debt and undertaking its payment as an act of perfect obedience to His will. Second, God in this matter acts as Ruler, Governor, and Judge. A strict judge is not required, simply as judge, to hate the guilty person — even when that person is genuinely guilty by actual fault rather than by imputation. The judge's role is simply to recognize the guilt and pronounce the sentence of punishment. Third, suppose a person of heroic generosity became a surety for another — for a friend, for a good man — willing to answer for him with his life, as Judah undertook to be responsible for Benjamin's liberty (which when lost leaves a man civilly dead). Would even the most cruel tyrant under heaven, in taking such a person's life, hate him for it? Would he not rather admire his nobility and virtue? It was in exactly this capacity that Christ suffered, and in no other. Fourth, the entire force of this objection rests on the ambiguity of the word "hate." It can mean either an aversion and detestation of mind, or simply a will to punish — which is most often how it applies to God. In the first sense, there was no basis for God to hate Christ on account of the guilt imputed to Him, by which He became answerable for another's fault and not His own. Inherent sin renders the soul polluted, abominable, and the proper object of divine aversion. But for One who was perfectly innocent, holy, harmless, and undefiled in Himself — who did no sin and in whose mouth no deceit was found — to take upon Himself the guilt of others' sins, in order to accomplish God's purpose for displaying His glory and infinite wisdom, grace, goodness, mercy, and righteousness, and to achieve the certain expiation and destruction of sin: nothing could have made Christ more glorious and lovely in the sight of God or man. As for God's will to punish where sin is imputed — no one can deny that without openly rejecting the satisfaction of Christ.

A brief survey of several of the arguments that confirm the truth we have asserted will close this discussion.

First: unless the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ, sin was not imputed to Him in any sense. The punishment of sin is not the same as sin itself, and those who think otherwise cannot explain what part of sin they believe was imputed. But Scripture is plain that God laid on Him the iniquity of us all and made Him to be sin for us — and this could not have happened except by imputation.

Second: there can be no punishment except in relation to guilt — whether guilt personally incurred or guilt imputed. Guilt alone is what gives something materially painful and afflictive the formal character of punishment. Those who understand the logical structure of these positions clearly, and who speak freely, consistently recognize that if one is denied, the other must be denied as well, and if one is affirmed, both must be affirmed together. If the guilt of sin was not imputed to Christ, then — as they rightly argue — He could not have undergone the punishment of sin. He might have done and suffered much on account of sin, but He could not have undergone the punishment properly due to sin. Conversely, if the guilt of sin was imputed to Him, they cannot deny that He underwent its punishment; and if He underwent its punishment, they cannot deny that its guilt was imputed to Him — for these two are inseparably linked.

Third: Christ was made a curse for us — the curse of the law — as is expressly stated in Galatians 3:13-14. But the curse of the law has reference only to guilt. Where there is no guilt, the curse cannot apply in any sense; and where there is guilt, the curse inseparably follows (Deuteronomy 27:26).

Fourth: the plain scriptural testimonies on this point cannot be evaded without openly twisting their words and meaning. God is said to make all our iniquities to meet upon Him — and He bore them as a burden, which is what the word signifies (Isaiah 53:6). God laid on Him the iniquity — that is, the guilt — of us all (Isaiah 53:11), and their sin or guilt He shall bear. This is the force of the Hebrew word that, when joined with any other term denoting sin in these passages, indicates guilt specifically: "You forgave the iniquity of my sin" (Psalm 32:5) — that is, its guilt, which is the only thing removed by pardon. Scripture also says His soul was made an offering for the guilt of sin, that He was made sin, that sin was condemned in His flesh, and so on.

Fifth: all of this was represented in all the sacrifices of old — especially in the great annual sacrifice on the day of atonement, with the ordinance of the scapegoat — as has been explained earlier.

Sixth: without this doctrine, it cannot be understood how the Lord Christ suffered in our stead or as our substitute — unless we accept the interpretation offered by a recent writer, who in listing the various things Christ did in our stead explains that phrase as simply meaning "to be of benefit to us." If he can invent anything more senseless and empty than that, he has a singular talent for it.